BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v James CMP AKK [2003] JRC 224 (03 December 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2003/2003_224.html Cite as: [2003] JRC 224 |
||
[New search] [Help]
[2003]JRC224
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
3rd December 2003
|
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and Allo. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Rachel Louise James;
C.M.P.
A.K.K.
Rachel Louise James
1st Indictment:
|
4 counts of: |
Cruelty to a child under sixteen, contrary to Article 9(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969: (counts 1, 2, 3, 4); |
|
2 counts of: |
Indecent assault; (counts 10, 12); |
|
1 count of: |
As occupier of premises, permitting smoking of cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium, contrary to Article 9(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 13); |
|
1 count of: |
Doing an act, tending to pervert course of justice (Count 14); |
|
1 count of: |
Carrying too many passengers and causing a danger, contrary to Article 106 (1) of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) (Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 15); |
|
1 count of: |
Carrying children without seatbelt, contrary to Article 22B(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 , as amended (Count 16); |
|
1 count of: |
Failing to stop and report road accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 18); |
|
1 count of: |
Permitting a person to drive uninsured contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (count 19). |
[On 24th October, 2003, Not Guilty pleas to Counts 11 and 17 of the indictment were accepted by the Crown; on 21st November, 2003 Counts 5 - 9 of the indictment were withdrawn].
2nd Indictment
|
1 count of: |
Indecent assault (Count 1); |
|
1 count of: |
Permitting a person to drive uninsured, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Count 2). |
Age: 32.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Between 1st January and 15th July, 2003, a mother of four children, started allowing certain teenagers to stay at her house whenever they wished, on some occasions sleeping over. Over the following months, the youths used James' house as their own and James allowed them to drink and smoke. The condition of James' home quickly deteriorated and James allowed her children to be exposed to intolerable living conditions. The kitchen became unclean, items of furniture were smashed and not replaced, the children's bed linen was left unwashed and James' daughter had problems with lice. Her own children slept on the floor while the teenagers used their beds. James failed to adequately feed her children, put them in a position in which they were subjected to bullying and allowed them to witness the youths taking illegal drugs, smoking and drinking alcohol. (Count 1 to 4 James' 1st Indictment).
On various unspecified dates James knowingly allowed the teenagers to smoke cannabis in her house in the presence of her children (Count 13 James' 1st indictment).
During the aforementioned period James had sexual intercourse with two of the youths that she had befriended. On one occasion this took place at one youth's father's property. (Count 10 James' 1st indictment). On a separate occasion James had sexual intercourse with the same youth whilst at her property (Count 12 James' 1st indictment).
On 16th March, 2003, CMP, who was one of the aforesaid group of teenagers, took and drove away a car without the owner's permission (Count 1 CMP 1st indictment). CMP drove the vehicle despite being disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence, and failing to hold any insurance (Count 2 and 3 CMP's indictment). Later on CMP maliciously tried to set fire to the car (Count 4 CMP's indictment).
On 9th April, 2003, CMP stole a van, again driving it whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence and without any insurance. CMP again maliciously set fire to the van, resulting in the vehicle being totally destroyed. (Count 5 to 8 CMP's indictment).
At this time, James voluntarily attended the Police station to be interviewed after her car had been spotted at the scene of an attempted car theft. James stated that the car had been taken without her consent. James was arrested three weeks later on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Eventually James admitted she had lied in her earlier interview and that she had driven the youths to the scene of the attempted theft and that she had given a false alibi for one of the youths (count 14 James' 1st indictment).
On 15th April, 2003, James was stopped by the police as she was carrying too many children in her car (she was carrying ten other people in her car besides herself). (Count 15 James' 1st indictment). Furthermore, James was found to be carrying passengers under the age of fourteen who were not wearing seatbelts (Count 16 James; 1st indictment).
During June 2003, several youths befriended by James were drinking and smoking at her house. Over the evening James became intimate with one of the youths (different to the victim in Counts 15 and 16 in the 1st indictment) and eventually had sexual intercourse with him (Count 1 James' 2nd indictment).
On 16th June, 2003, AKK, another youth befriended by James, broke into a beach café and stole cash (Count 1 on AKK's indictment). Later on that evening AKK broke into a car and drove it forwards and backwards in a car park (Count 3 AKK's indictment). Then AKK tried to break into another café with the intention of stealing any monies found therein. However the attempt failed (Count 5 AKK's indictment). The next day AKK was seen driving James' Shogun, reversing along the pavement and driving at speed. At the time AKK was disqualified from driving and held no insurance (Counts 7 and 8 AKK's indictment.
On a separate occasion whilst at James' property, CMP committed a grave and criminal assault on another youth by punching him, before banging his head on a concrete floor and then dragging him through the house. (Count 9 of CMP's indictment).
Several days later CMP took and drove away a vehicle without the owner's consent, then abandoned it later on. CMP was still disqualified from driving and held no insurance (Count 10 to 12 CMP's indictment). Later on that day CMP took and drove away a lorry without the owner's permission whilst disqualified and without insurance (Count 13 to 15 CMP's indictment).
On a separate occasion, James was driving several of the youths in her Shogun when she hit a lamp post with her car. Despite causing damage she drove away and failed to report the incident to the Police (Count 18 James' 1st indictment).
Again during June, 2003, James drove various youths to Ouaisne Bay and allowed CMP to drive her Shogun around the car park despite knowing he was only fifteen and not covered by insurance (Count 19 James' 1st indictment).
During July, 2003, James bought a second hand car and allowed CMP to drive it, whilst aware that he was not covered by an insurance policy (Count 2 of James' 2nd indictment). CMP drove the said car whilst disqualified from driving and uninsured (Count 17 and 18 on CMP's indictment) CMP lost control and crashed the car, but failed to report the incident (Count 19 on CMP's indictment).
Details of Mitigation:
Only one minor previous conviction and a guilty plea. James was vulnerable, she was estranged from her husband, she felt lonely. James had a difficult childhood, had married and had children at a young age. Although she neglected her children James did not commit any physical cruelty to them. During the time of the offences she had "reverted to being a teenager again". James remains the sole provider for her young family. She showed remorse and realised that she had let her children down. James was not a leader in these offences, but she had accepted her actions. A psychological report showed her as a vulnerable, anxious, oversensitive woman who became lonely after her marriage broke down. James also had the benefit of her extended family's support.
Previous Convictions:
1 previous conviction in relation to charges of larceny as a servant and false accounts.
Conclusions:
1st Indictment
|
Counts 1 - 4: |
6 months' imprisonment, on each count, concurrent. |
|
Count 10: |
15 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 12: |
15 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 13: |
6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 14: |
9 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 15: |
2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 16: |
£50 fine. |
|
Count 18: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 19: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent ; 24 months' disqualified from driving. |
2nd Indictment
|
Count 1: |
15 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 2: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; 24 months' disqualified from driving. |
TOTAL: 15 months' imprisonment; £50 fine; 24 months' disqualified from driving.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court questioned whether James had to go to prison or if an alternative existed. Taking into account that James needed to re-establish her relationship with her children, that she had the support of her family and that she was not the leader in this particular case there was an alternative. The Court indicated that James should consider herself very fortunate and sentenced her to:
1st Indictment.
|
Counts 1 - 4: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 10: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 12: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 13: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 14: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 15: |
£100.00 fine or 1 month's imprisonment, in default of payment. |
|
Count 16: |
£50.00 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment, in default of payment, consecutive if need be. |
|
Count 18: |
£400.00 fine or 1 month's imprisonment, in default of payment, consecutive if need be; 6 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification; |
|
Count 19: |
110 hours Community Service Order; 24 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification. |
2nd Indictment.
|
Count 1: |
110 hours Community Service Order. |
|
Count 2: |
110 hours Community Service Order; 24 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification. |
The Court observed that if imprisonment had been appropriate, then the correct sentences would have been as follows:
1st Indictment
|
Counts 1 - 4, |
9 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 10: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 12: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 13: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 14: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 15: |
£100.00 fine or 1 month's imprisonment, in default of payment, consecutive if need be. |
|
Count 16: |
£50.00 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment, in default of payment, consecutive if need be. |
|
Count 18: |
£400.00 fine or 1 month's imprisonment, in default of payment, consecutive if need be; 6 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification. |
|
Count 19: |
6 months' imprisonment; 24 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification.. |
2nd Indictment
|
Count 1: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
6 months' imprisonment; 24 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent with other periods of disqualification.. |
C.M.P.
|
4 counts of: |
Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Counts 1, 5, 10, 13); |
|
5 counts of: |
Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 9 (4) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Counts 2, 6, 11, 14, 17); |
|
5 counts of: |
Driving uninsured contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Counts 3, 7, 12, 15, 18); |
|
2 counts of: |
Maliciously setting fire to property of another, contrary to Article 17(2) of the Fire Service (Jersey) Law 1959 (counts 4 and 8); |
|
1 count of: |
Grave and criminal assault (count 9); |
|
1 count of: |
Failing to stop and report accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 19). |
[The Crown accepted a Not Guilty plea to count 16].
Age: 17.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See James above.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth - he was 15 at the time of the offences; poor record but not an entirely hopeless case. CMP admitted his guilt and had the support of his mother.
Previous Convictions:
8 previous convictions comprising 139 offences. Presently in breach of Probation Order and Community Service Order. Disqualified from driving.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 2: |
9 months' youth detention, 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 3: |
12 months' youth detention, 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Court 4: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 5: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 6 |
9 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 7: |
12 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualified from driving. |
|
Count 8: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 9: |
12 months youth detention. |
|
Count 10: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 11: |
9 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 12: |
12 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 13: |
18 months' youth detention. |
|
Count 14: |
9 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 15: |
12 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 17: |
9 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 18: |
12 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 19: |
3 months' youth detention. |
TOTAL: 18 months' youth detention; 24 months' disqualified from driving.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Crown's conclusions granted. Court hopes that he will mend his ways when he is released.
A.K.K.
|
1 count of: |
Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 1); |
|
1 count of: |
Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 3); |
|
1 count of: |
Attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit crime (Count 5); |
|
1 count of: |
Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 9(4) of the Road Traffic(Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 7); |
|
1 count of: |
Driving uninsured, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Count 8). |
[On 24th October, 2003, the Crown accepted Not Guilty pleas to Counts 2, 4, 6 and 9 of the indictment].
Age: 16.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See James above.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth. Guilty plea and confessions to police although he was not initially a suspect. Has tried hard to reform and is determined to sort his life out.
Previous Convictions:
6 previous convictions comprising 18 separate offences (theft, dishonesty, motoring offences). Disqualified from driving.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours Community Service Order, 18 months' Probation. |
|
Count 3: |
120 hours Community Service Order, 18 months' Probation. |
|
Count 5: |
150 hours Community Service Order, 18 months' Probation. |
|
Count 7: |
150 hours Community Service Order, 24 months' disqualified from driving; 18 months' Probation. |
|
Count 8: |
150 hours Community Service Order, 24 months' disqualified from driving; 18 months' Probation. |
TOTAL: 150 hours Community Service Order; 18 months' Probation Order; 24 months' disqualified from driving.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Crown's conclusions granted, save Court refrained from ordering Community Service so as not to interfere with the Probation Order, which would also entail completing SMART and ACT courses. Court warned that Youth Detention would be inevitable if he does not abide by the Probation Order.
C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the R.L. James.
Advocate P.C. Harris for C.M.P.
Advocate D Hopwood for A.K.K.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. James you are 33 and you have only one minor previous conviction and yet you are now before the Court for this array of offences. It appears to have been caused by an unfortunate combination of circumstances when your son was injured and a whole number of teenagers began to visit your home. Your husband objected to this but you asked him to leave and you then appear to have completely lost control.
2. You permitted them to behave in an unacceptable manner, and indeed you joined in with them. You neglected your children to the extent that they had to be taken into care and you had sexual intercourse with two of the teenagers aged 15. However, we do accept that, as the various reports that we have seen state, this was more the case of an ill-considered response of a confused vulnerable and immature woman rather than a calculating or predatory act. In particular with relation to the sexual intercourse, we accept that there was no element of grooming or preparation on your part; as the reports make clear it was fuelled by emotional need.
3. We think the most serious aspect of your offending is the neglect of your children, and we hope that you think the same. We accept that there was no physical cruelty but you failed them dismally as a mother. We cannot fault the Crown's conclusions of an overall sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, although we do not agree with the way they have weighted the different offences. We will come to that in a moment.
4. The question for us is whether we in fact have to impose a prison sentence or whether there is an alternative. In this respect we have been much influenced by the need for you to re-establish the relationship with your children and we think their interests are very important. We are also influenced by the fact that you have had a good character up until now, by the support of your family, who have come to Court, and by their views and the views of the experts that this was wholly out of character.
5. We also accept that you were not a leader encouraging these teenagers to commit these offences. If we had thought that then there would be no doubt that prison would be the answer and indeed a longer prison sentence than the Crown had moved for. We accept that this was something which occurred as part of a crisis in your life. Nevertheless, as the mother of four children you should never have allowed any of this to happen. You must, therefore, accept responsibility for it.
6. Having regard to all the matters which appear in the reports and what your counsel has said we think we can - just - proceed, by way of non-custodial sentence, particularly bearing in mind that you have already spent the equivalent of 7 months in custody.
7. We are going to start by saying what we think would have been the correct sentences had we decided to send you to prison. We ought to say this because we are going to impose community service and the law requires us to state alternatives. On the first four counts of cruelty to children we think 6 months' was inadequate, we think 9 months' is the least sentence which would have been proper for that. On the indecent assaults we think 15 months' is far too high, given the particular facts. We have noted the case provided by Mrs Pearmain and we would have imposed a sentence of 6 months on counts 10, 12 and count 2 of the second indictment. Count 13, 6 months; count 14, 12 months; count 15, we will impose a fine of £100 with one month in default; on count 16, carrying children not wearing seat belt, we will impose a fine of £50 with two weeks in default, consecutive; for failing to stop and report an accident, (count 18) we will impose a fine of £400 with one month in default consecutive; count 19, 6 months'; and on the second indictment, on count 1, we would have imposed 6 months. We impose 6 months' disqualification on count 18 and; and 24 months' disqualification on counts 19 and count 2 of the second indictment.
8. In relation to all those offences where we would have imposed prison we impose a community service order of 110 hours. That makes allowance for the fact that you have spent the equivalent of 7 months on remand. We also impose a probation order for 2 years so that you will have some help from the Probation Service in re-establishing a relationship with your children. So you can consider yourself very fortunate. We hope very much not to see you before this Court again.
9. The other matter I did not mentioned is that you have 1 month in which to pay the fines failing which the default sentences will take effect.
10. C.M.P. you have an appalling record for one so young. According to the Report you have been before the Court on some 8 or 9 occasions for nearly 140 offences, usually motoring. The Court has tried probation but you have taken no advantage of this and it is clear from the reports that you are not very interested in going on probation again.
11. We are quite satisfied that you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and are unable or unwilling to respond to them. There is therefore no alternative to youth detention. Because of your age there is a statutory maximum of 12 months and we entirely agree with the Crown that that is what ought to be imposed. We, therefore, grant the Crown's conclusions, save we think that for convenience all those cases where they moved for 18 months ought to be 12 months and on the cases of driving whilst disqualified they move for the statutory maximum of 12 months. We think it ought to be 9 months for each of those offences. On all the counts that they have moved for disqualification we impose 2 years disqualification.
12. I must warn you that you may be liable to supervision when you come out of youth detention. We can only hope that you are beginning to learn your lesson. If not you will just go back to youth detention over and over again, and if that is the way you want to live your life so be it. We very much hope that you will try and mend your ways when you come out.
13. AKK you too have got a poor record for one so young, although it is nothing like as bad as CMP's. We accept that the relationship with your mother is at the heart of some of your difficulties and that you need to work on this as you are trying to do now.
14. We have had regard to the reports and to the progress you have been making, and we also take account of your age and of the requirements of Article 4 of the 1994 Law. In all the circumstances we agree with the Crown and with the Probation Service that you do not need to go to youth detention on this occasion. We are going to impose a Probation Order of 18 months' and we are also going to say that you must, therefore, do any courses which you are directed to do by the Probation Service. This will be the SMART course and the ACT course as well.
15. We did consider imposing community service as well; but we have decided not to, because the various courses which you are going to attend will take up considerable time and we wish to give you the best possible chance of succeeding at them. You must count yourself lucky. You too are heading for regular periods of youth detention unless you mend your ways and certainly if you do not do exactly what the probation officer says, if you do not turn up exactly on time to all these courses, if you re-offend, then you will be brought back here and there will no alternative then but for the Court to send you to youth detention.
