Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC165

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

31^st August 2007

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E. Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo, and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Justin John Charles Anderton

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts of:	Illegal entry and larceny.  (Counts 1 and 5).
1 count of:	Illegal breaking and entry and larceny.  (Count 2).

Age:  30

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Anderton illegally entered the detached garage of a private residence during the afternoon and attempted to steal alcohol.  He was interrupted by the householders and a struggle ensued.  During interview he claimed that he had been given permission to enter the garage by a male acquaintance he believed lived at the property.  (Count 1).

During the night Anderton illegally entered Highlands College.  Keys were removed from a cleaner's store and an untidy search followed.  Blood was smeared over internal surfaces.  Internal glazed panels were smashed.  A vending machine was broken into and chocolate valued at between £3 to £5 stolen.  During interview Anderton denied the offence.  He said he was a student at Highlands at the time and had legitimate access to most parts of the building.  Anderton said he bit his nails which caused them to bleed.  He also bled when playing football.  DNA samples were recovered and Anderton interviewed in the offence.  He reiterated he bit his nails causing them to bleed and sometimes bled as a result of playing football.  He admitted injuring his hand at about the time of the incident.  (Count 2).

Early one evening Anderton and Marett (his co-accused) illegally entered the detached garage of a private residence and stole foodstuffs valued at £30.  Anderton and Marett were disturbed by the householders.  Marett escaped.  Anderton was forcibly restrained.  During the interview Anderton admitted being at the premises but suggested his co-accused had taken the lead role.  Marett was interviewed.  He claimed Anderton had identified the premises and had taken the lead.  The Crown preferred Marett's version.  Distress was caused to the female householder and her children.  (Count 5).

Alcohol was a feature in Counts 1 and 5.  Count 5 was committed at a time whilst Anderton was remanded on a conditional warning before the Magistrate's Court in relation to other charges.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (although not entered at the earliest opportunity) and remorse.

Previous Convictions:

An appalling record containing numerous previous convictions fro larceny, receiving stolen goods, breaking and entering and other dishonesty related offences recorded before Jersey's Juvenile Court, Magistrate's Court and Royal Court.  Anderton had been subjected to a range of disposals including both custodial and non-custodial measures.  He had consistently breached Probation, Binding Over and Community Service Orders.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	18 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 2½ years' imprisonment.

Although Anderton and Marett had been jointly Indicted, Marett had failed to appear on Indictment and his arrest had been ordered.  He remained unlawfully at large.  In the Court's view Marett's actions had no effect on Anderton's position and it would proceed to sentence Anderton alone.

Anderton was aged 30 with a bad criminal record containing a wide range of larceny, receiving and dishonesty offences stretching back to 1991.  He had previously been sentenced to custodial and non-custodial measures.

The Court regarded domestic burglary as particularly serious and even more serious if the premises were occupied and distress caused.  The offence of illegal entry and larceny was very serious but the ends of the respective scale of the offence were very similar.

Anderton could claim no credit for youth.  He had late guilty please which were of some value.  The Court had read letters from Anderton and his father.  The Social Enquiry Report considered Anderton was a high risk of re-offending.  He had a poor record of compliance.  The Alcohol and Drug report recommended a one year treatment order.  Advocate Grace had suggested a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment would be appropriate.  The content of the reports was noted but the Court had to consider the distress caused.

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Although the indictment charges Anderton and Marett, the accused Marett failed to appear on indictment and his arrest was ordered.  He is still unlawfully at large.  His actions do not affect Anderton and we will proceed to sentence Anderton alone, as the two were indicted on 3^rd August, 2007, and Anderton has been remanded in custody since that time.

2.        Anderton is 30 years old and his criminal record is extensive.  His first conviction was as long ago as 1991.  Since then he has been convicted for a very wide range of offences, including larceny, receiving stolen goods, breaking and entering and other dishonesty related offences.  He has received punishments over the years, ranging from custodial to non-custodial measures, and he has consistently breached Probation and Community Service Orders.

3.        The Crown Advocate has given us extensive details of each of the offences committed and let us take them in date order.

(i)        The first offence (Count 1) was committed by Anderton on 2^nd February, 2007, when, in the afternoon, he was discovered in the garage of No. 1, Bagatelle Farm, Palace Close, St Saviour by Mrs Barbapiccola and her daughter.  They discovered Anderton taking wine and beer from the top shelf in the garage.  Fortunately Mr Barbapiccola was at home and, after a struggle, Anderton was restrained.  The daughter telephoned the Police, who arrived shortly afterwards, and it must be said that Anderton was very drunk.  Anderton made self serving statements at the Police station.

(ii)       Count 2 took place in February 2006 when Anderton broke into the Technical Building at Highlands College.  Entry was gained by smashing a large glass panel, giving access to a corridor near the joinery workshop.  A cupboard, which contained keys, was forced open.  There is also evidence that force had been used to smash a vending machine and to open other drawers and cupboards.  Some £50 worth of stock was stolen, but the damage to the glass door that was shattered is put at £200.  He consistently denied any involvement in the offence to Police attending.  He admitted that about the time of the break-in at Highlands he had injured his hand and he had attended the Accident & Emergency Department at the hospital for stitches to be put in.  He was fingerprinted and released.

(iii)      Some two months after Count 1 and with Marett, he illegally entered the garage of the property Selbourne, Rue de Trachy (Count 5).  The two accused were discovered in the early evening by Evelyn Bailey who was going to put some washing in her washing machine.  She courageously detained Anderton, until her partner Mr Hibbs came running from the house, he punched Anderton twice and put him in a headlock.  Mrs Bailey, who has young children, was extremely upset by this incident.  The food from the freezer was estimated at £30.  When arrested Anderton, who was again drunk, said "Shall I tell you who I was with, na."  

He first appeared at the Magistrates Court on 5^th February, 2007, but was remanded in custody on 10^th April, 2007.

4.        We regard domestic burglary as a matter of particular seriousness.  Particularly when, as in the case of the property Selbourne, it was occupied and distress was caused to the occupier.  We must also recall what was said in AG v Gaffney [1995] JRC 101 when the breaking and entering of commercial premises was set at 18 months.  We entirely agree with the learned Crown Advocate that while there is an illegal entry and larceny of domestic premises, and a very serious violation of private property rights, there is a significant difference in sentencing when one considers distress, ransacking, damage, vandalism, at one end of the scale, with opportunistic stealing from apparently unattended premises at the other end of the scale.

5.        Anderton has no credit for youth, but he has expressed remorse and his guilty plea, although given late in the day, has some value.  We have carefully considered his handwritten letter and the letter from his father which blames his deviant behaviour on drink.  Both the offences at Selbourne and 1, Bagatelle Farm, were perhaps opportunistic and alcohol, no doubt, fuelled his behaviour, but, as we have said before, alcohol is no defence.  We have before us detailed Social Enquiry, Psychological and Drug and Alcohol Reports.  The Social Enquiry Report says that Anderton has been assessed as being at a high risk of re-offending.  There is, however, a recommendation that the custodial treatment might serve no useful purpose, but we have to have regard to his poor record of compliance with the Probation Service and the Consultant Clinical Psychologist recommends some more therapy and the Director of the Drug, Alcohol and Drugs Service is persuaded to recommend a year's Treatment Order.  Advocate Grace in her effective address concludes only that a prison sentence should be reduced to 2 years. 

6.        We have noted the reports most carefully, but we always have to consider the distress caused to the victims of the burglaries.  We are very much aware of the long delay and we are prepared to reduce Count 2 to 6 months' imprisonment and we can reduce Counts 1 and 5 to 15 months' imprisonment, those are consecutive.  Count 2, of course, is concurrent.

7.        We are going to sentence you to a total of 2 years and 6 months that includes the time that you have been in custody.  We express the hope that while you are in prison you will take the time to take advantage of any education opportunities that come your way, and take an opportunity to rid yourself of your drink problem, which is obviously a very serious one.

Authorities

AG v Gaffney [1995] JRC 101.