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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Jersey Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Ozard [2003] JRC 055 (21 March 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2003/2003_055.html
Cite as: [2003] JRC 055, [2003] JRC 55

[New search] [Help]


[2003]JRC055

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21st March 2003

 

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Le Breton and Clapham.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Dean Jones Ozard

 

 

1 count of:

Criminally and fraudulently obtaining goods by false pretences (count 1)

 

Breach of a 1 year Probation Order with 240 hours' Community Service, made by the Royal Court on 15th November, 2002 [see 2002/220], following guilty pleas to 2 counts of aiding/participating in breaking and entering and larceny (counts 1A and 4A); I count of receiving (count 2B); and 1 count of illegal entry and larceny (count 3).

 

Age:     20.

 

Plea:    On 21st January, 2003, the Defendant was convicted following a not guilty plea in the Magistrate's Court and was committed for sentence to the Royal Court under Article 4A of the Police Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1949.

Breach of Probation Order admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Ozard obtained a medical prescription for 8 diazepam tablets by telling a doctor he had just returned form Thailand where he experimented with drugs for the first time and that he wished to detox himself.  He altered the prescription by putting the figure 4 in front of the figure 8 and then obtained 48 tablets from a chemist.  He pleaded not guilty in the Magistrate's Court but was convicted and committed under Article 4A of the Police Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1949.  The offence had been committed nine days after having been placed on probation with a condition of attending a SMART Course and being subject to a treatment order for drug addiction. 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth.

 

Previous Convictions:

Starting in 1997, an extensive record for offences of dishonesty and public disorder.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

3 months' Youth Detention, consecutive to sentences passed in relation to breach of probation.

Breach:

 

Count 1A:

2 years' Youth Detention.

Count 2B:

18 months' Youth Detention, concurrent.

Count 3:

12 months' Youth Detention, concurrent.

Count 4A:

6 months' Youth Detention, concurrent.

TOTAL:

2 years, 3 months' Youth Detention.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

Solicitor General.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant comes before the Court to be sentenced both for the offences for which he was placed on probation on 15th November, 2002, and for a further offence of obtaining diazepam tablets by fraud of which he was convicted by the Magistrate's Court after a trial on the 21st January, 2003.

2.        It is to be noted that this last offence was committed within 10 days of being placed on probation by this Court on the 15th November.  The Court had been persuaded that the defendant was motivated to conquer his heroin addiction and to turn away from crime.  Sadly, that turned out not to be the case. 

3.        The defendant has a very bad record and has been placed on probation on no fewer than five occasions; three of those Probation Orders have been breached.  He is still aged only 20, and the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 therefore apply, prohibiting the Court from imposing a custodial sentence unless it is satisfied that no other disposal is appropriate.

4.        We are satisfied that no method, other than a custodial sentence, is appropriate on the ground that the Defendant has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them.

5.        In mitigation we have taken account of his youth, and of the very difficult and sad upbringing that he has suffered.  We have given very careful consideration to the submissions made by your Counsel about the amount of time spent in custody on remand, but you were specifically warned on the last occasion that the earlier period would not be taken into account if you breached your Probation Order. 

6.        Taking matters in the round we think that the conclusions are right and fair.  You have been given chance after chance by the Courts to conquer your addiction and resolve your difficulties, but there comes a time when the chickens come home to roost, and you have to pay the penalty for your offending.  We hope that you will take advantage of the facilities in the Young Offenders Centre and maintain your resolve to overcome your addiction.

7.        The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced on the earlier indictment to 2 years' Youth Detention on count 1A; 18 months' Youth Detention on count 2B; 12 months' Youth Detention on count 3; 6 months' Youth Detention on count 4A; making a total of 2 years' Youth Detention; and to 3 months' Youth Detention, consecutive, on the separate billet making a total of 2 years 3 months' Youth Detention, and I have to warn you that when you have served your sentence you will be liable to be supervised by a Probation or other Officer.  The Probation Order will be discharged.

No Authorities

 


Page Last Updated: 18 Jun 2015


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2003/2003_055.html