Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC073

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th May 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Georgelin, Le Cornu and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

James Christopher Power

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea to:

1 count of:

Robbery.

Representation by Crown re breaches of Community Service Order and Probation Order.

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Power entered Tickners Corner Store being a small convenience store with only one member of staff serving at any one time located in St Helier.  The Store was, however, monitored by internal CCTV which had an audio facility.  The entire incident was, therefore, caught on CCTV.  The CCTV recording was shown to the Court at the Sentencing Hearing.  It showed Power waiting until the shop was empty.  There was one other customer before him.  He was wearing a hood and his face was partially obscured by a scarf.  He went to the counter and purchased a bar of chocolate.  When the till was opened Power brought out a large knife hidden within his trousers.  He threatened the shopkeeper with a knife demanding money from the till.  The knife was approximately 12 inches long- 8 inch blade.  It was a kitchen knife.

The shopkeeper courageously used a broom handle to prevent Power from taking money from the till.  This resulted in Power slashing and stabbing with the knife with a total wanton disregards for the consequences.  The shopkeeper sustained superficial cuts to his face and hands and it is by pure good fortune that he did not sustain a more serious physical injury.  Power then grabbed monies from the till and having threatened to kill the shopkeeper then left the premises.  He stole a total of £183.

The injuries sustained by the shopkeeper were superficial.  An Impact Statement was, however, produced to the Court which showed that he had suffered mild to moderate levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in consequence of this offence.

The Police attended and the CCTV recording was seized.  From a review of that CCTV recording, Power was identified as a potential suspect.  He was located and arrested the following day.  During the interview he denied any involvement in the offence.  He was shown the CCTV recording and he maintained his denial that he had committed the offence.  He denied that he was the male seen on the video recording.  An address at which Power had been staying was identified and a search had been undertaken at the premises which revealed the hooded top, scarf and the kitchen knife used by Power.  He was shown these items but maintained his denial and claimed these items were nothing to do with him.  He then made a full admission as to his involvement in the offence.  He claimed that he was desperate for money and he had decided that this was the "easiest way" to raise money.  He had not intended to use the knife but only to use it as a "shock tactic".  When committing the offence he was under the influence of a cocktail of drugs.  He had not retained any of the money but had given it to a person which he was not prepared to name to whom he was indebted for drugs.  He entered a guilty plea on his first appearance before the Magistrate's Court.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown took the view that this was a serious offence and that in accordance with guidelines case of Gill -v- The Attorney General only a substantial custodial sentence could be justified.  The sentence had to include an element of deterrence.  The offence was aggravated by the fact that Power was under the influence of illegal drugs at the time the offence was committed.  

In terms of mitigation he had the benefit of youth and his guilty plea.  He had not, however, been initially co-operative with the Police.  He did not have the benefit of good character, although this was his first offence of violence.  He was in breach of previous non-custodial sentences imposed upon him for which he would have been in breach in any event for non-compliance had he not re-offended.  The Crown had regard to the contents of the Social Enquiry Report and the Alcohol and Drugs Service Report and also a letter of remorse produced by Power.

The Defence did not dispute that this was a grave offence and that therefore a custodial sentence was justified.  It was simply a question of the length of that custodial sentence.  The Defence noted that by way of comparison with the English cases there was an absence of many of the aggravating features which often exist in such cases i.e. this was unplanned, had not selected a vulnerable victim, the offence was in daylight and not dark, no real attempt to disguise himself, small sum taken and no efforts taken to dispose of clothing/knife.  He had previously made the best of the chances which had been given to him and had generally complied with previous non-custodial options.  He had spent 5 months in custody.  The early guilty plea and remorse were emphasised.  It was contended that he would never do this again and that his recent period in custody had changed him.  It was suggested that an appropriate sentence was between 3 and 3½ years.

Previous Convictions:

He has a total of eight convictions for thirteen offences including possession of controlled drugs, braking and entry, larceny, public order and motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 years' youth detention.

Discharge of Probation Order and Community Service Order, no alternative penalty.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Robbery with violence is one of the most serious offences against the person.  Power had gone into a small grocers store wearing a hood and carrying a large kitchen knife.  He threatened the shopkeeper and subsequently used it.  Mr Oliviera had shown considerable courage in attempting to prevent Power from stealing from the till.  He suffered slight injuries and it was a matter of great good fortune that the injuries were not more serious.  The Court was in no doubt that the message should go out to all shopkeepers that they will be supported by the Court.  The Court would impose deterrent sentences to deter others who may be tempted to engage in similar violence.  If persons are minded to do so then they will suffer the consequences.  Violence of this kind will not and will never be tolerated in Jersey.

By way of mitigation Power had his guilty plea and the Court accepted his expressions of remorse.  He was a first offender of violence but not of good character.  Most significant mitigating factor was his age as he was only 20.  The provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) Jersey) Law, 1994 therefore applied.  Defence Counsel had realistically accepted the offence was so serious that non-custodial options were not justified.  The Court was glad to read the reports that suggested Power had turned the corner and that he had ceased taking drugs and that he now wanted to make something of his life.  The Court expressed the hope that he would continue to make progress.  Despite everything that had been said, however, the Court must punish Power for the seriousness of the offence committed.  The Conclusions of the Crown take into account all the relevant facts.  The Conclusions were therefore granted.

The knife was ordered to be forfeited and destroyed.

J. C. Gollop, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. J. MacRae for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Robbery with violence is one the most serious offences against the person.  Power went into a small grocer's shop in a relatively isolated position, wearing a hood and carrying a large kitchen knife with which he threatened the shop keeper and which he subsequently used against him.

2.        The shop keeper responded with considerable courage.  Only slight injuries were caused to him but that was a matter of great good fortune to everyone.  The Court has no doubt that the message should go out that shop keepers should know that they will be supported by the Court in the sense that the Court will impose deterrent sentences in this type of case.  The Court is determined to deter others who may be tempted to engage in similar violence and to remind them that if they do so they are likely to face long sentences of imprisonment.  Violence of this kind is not to be tolerated and will never be tolerated by the Courts of Jersey.

3.        We have listened very carefully to all the submissions of defence counsel who has said most eloquently, everything that could be said on the defendant's behalf.  In mitigation, Power has pleaded guilty to the offence, and has expressed his remorse which we accept is genuine.  He does not have a good record, but this is the first offence of violence.  Most significantly Power is aged only 20 and the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 apply.

4.        Defence counsel realistically accepted, and we find, that this offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  Power, we are glad to read not only from your own letter, but also from the reports that you have turned the corner and that you are determined to make something of your life and to cease your connection with drug taking which has led you into the situation in which you find yourself.  We hope that you will continue to make progress in the young offenders' centre.  We have, despite all the things which can be said on your behalf, to punish you for the very serious offence which you committed and to which you have pleaded guilty.  We think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate take very full account of all the mitigating factors outlined by your counsel and the conclusions are accordingly granted, and you will be sentenced to 4 years' youth detention.  We discharge the Probation Order imposed on the Magistrate's Court on 16^th September, 2005, and the Community Service Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 30^th November, 2005. and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the knife.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.