Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC196

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th December 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Liddiard.

Khalel Siddique Ahmed

-v-

The Attorney General

Appeal against a sentence passed by the Magistrate's Court on a charge of:

1 count of:

Escaping from lawful custody without force contrary to Article 21 of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957.

Mr Ahmed on his own behalf

S. Sharpe Crown Advocate for Defence.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an application by Khalel Siddique Ahmed who seeks leave to appeal out of time against a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate on 9^th November, 2006, in respect of a conviction for escaping from lawful custody on 22^nd October 2006.

2.        The 8 months' imprisonment sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence already being served for offences involving the possession of drugs with intent to supply.

3.        The Crown Advocate has generously conceded that, because there appears to have been some misunderstanding in relation to the obtaining of legal advice, she should not oppose the application for leave to appeal out of time.  In these circumstances we have agreed to grant leave in that respect and to hear the applicant's appeal.

4.        The appellant made, essentially, three points for us to consider.  The first point was that the escape was not planned and that it arose spontaneously when he learned that there might be some form of relationship between his daughter and a neighbour which might have exposed his daughter to risk.  This gave rise to concerns on his part and he wanted to escape in order to deal with that problem.

5.        Secondly, he indicated that he wished to approach his former father-in-law so as to receive assistance, if possible, in relation to his deportation to Bangladesh.

6.        Thirdly, he told the Court that he had been very concerned about the failure to obtain a visa for India so that he might not have to leave the airport in Bangladesh and travel directly to India.  The appellant has expressed fears that he might be at risk of some physical retribution from the authorities because of the offence he has committed and because of the office held by his father in Bangladesh.

7.        He also told the Court that he felt that he had no choice in the matter and that he was driven to commit the offence of escaping from lawful custody.  He expressed his remorse for the actions which he had taken. 

8.        The Crown Advocate has drawn the Court's attention to the case of AG -v- Powell [2000] JRC 139 where the Court adopted some comments from the English Court in R -v- Clarke [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S) 825 to the effect that the offence of escaping from lawful custody was one which must generally attract a consecutive sentence in order to deter others from trying to escape.  The authorities indicate that offences of escaping from lawful custody appear to attract sentences of between 6 months' and 12 months' imprisonment. 

9.        We note that the maximum penalty in this jurisdiction is imprisonment for 2 years.  The test that this Court has to apply is whether or not the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.  It is not for us to substitute our own view of what was the appropriate sentence.  We have to ask ourselves whether the Magistrate has in effect acted unreasonably in imposing the sentence that was imposed.

10.      We have considered all the points raised by the appellant which were, in the main, raised on his behalf by his advocate in the Magistrate's Court.  We cannot reach the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Authorities

AG v Powell [2000] JRC 139.

R v Clarke [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S).