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- Carboulec [2015] JRC 196A (25 September 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2015/2015_196A.html Cite as: [2015] JRC 196A |
||
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - breach of the peace - malicious damage.
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle and Liston |
The Attorney General
-v-
Darren Carboulec
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Malicious damage (Count 1). |
Age: 34.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 14th June, 2015, the defendant had been drinking on the beach with a friend and her daughter. The police were called to a disturbance and the daughter was arrested. On making his way to Police Headquarters, the defendant was intoxicated and verbally abusive towards the enquiry desk staff. The defendant was asked to leave the area. He walked along Rouge Bouillon towards Great Union Road. He appeared to be shouting at pedestrians on the other side of the road, was carrying a glass bottle and his demeanour was hostile. As he walked along, he smashed the bottle on a window sill and whilst holding the broken bottle neck in his hand, he walked towards two pedestrians (a man and a woman) who were tourists. They describe feeling "really threatened" and "scared and shocked". The defendant was arrested and taken back to Police Headquarters.
Whilst on bail (Monday 31st August) the defendant returned to his accommodation at the Shelter Trust's Aztec House. He was intoxicated. The defendant was aware that he could not stay at Aztec House whilst intoxicated. He was advised to go for a walk and sober up. The defendant is seen exiting the premises. At around 22:28 he re-enters the premises with a glass bottle. He then uses the base of the bottle to smash the glass pane within the secure door. The Shelter staff asked him to stop and told him the police had been called. However, the defendant continued to smash the window pane. He was arrested soon after.
These offences place him in breach of a Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court in March 2015.
Details of Mitigation:
He left school with no formal qualifications and his longest period in employment has been four months. He was diagnosed with mental health difficulties in 1998. He has a long history of alcohol and illicit substance abuse.
Previous Convictions:
Significant number of previous convictions for offences including conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, being drunk and disorderly, malicious damage, larceny and assault.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
9 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 1: |
3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Total: 12 months' imprisonment.
Breach of Probation Order imposed by Magistrate's Court on 10th March, 2015: no separate penalty.
Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th category licensed premise excluding the Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour, the Opera House and the Arts Centre for a period of 12 months from the date the defendant is released from prison.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
9 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 1: |
3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Breach of Probation Order imposed by Magistrate's Court on 10th March, 2015: 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to previous charges but consecutive to above.
Total: 14 months' imprisonment.
Exclusion Order made from the date of sentencing excluding the defendant from 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th category licensed premise excluding the Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour, the Opera House and the Arts Centre for a period of 18 months.
R. J. MacRae, Attorney General, appeared for the Crown.
Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. You have got a very long record for public order and other offences and you were placed on probation for 4 months by the Magistrate's Court in March 2015, but you have already breached that four times. You are now before this Court for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, which involved wandering through a street in St Helier, holding the neck of a bottle you had smashed and putting fear into some tourists; and malicious damage which involved smashing a glass pane in the entrance hall of the Shelter with a broken bottle. In each case you were very intoxicated and it is clear that this is at the root of many of your problems. Until you can conquer your drinking there is little hope of your keeping out of trouble and you will find yourself going back to prison again and again. We do, of course, acknowledge your mental condition as well which makes it even more difficult. Advocate Fogarty, who has spoken very clearly on your behalf, has accepted that there is no alternative to prison on this occasion and we think you understand that.
2. What we do hope is that you will take advantage of what is on offer there during your period of imprisonment. Help can be given, both in relation to your mental condition and your alcohol dependence, and we urge you to take advantage of what is on offer so that when you are released, the prospects are more encouraging.
3. As we say, Advocate Fogarty accepts that there is no alternative to prison but she does refer us to the case of Capuano-v-AG [2004] JCA 168 which lays down that you cannot impose a higher sentence than is justified by the offences in order to obtain some perceived benefit for the offender or, indeed, for the community. We entirely accept this principle but in our judgment 12 months in total is not excessive for these two offences, taking account of your long record for similar offences and the circumstances of the two offences; the first involved putting members of the public in fear and the second involved a violent attack on the property of the Shelter in the presence of some of its staff.
4. So we conclude that that is the right sentence. We also think that there should be a consecutive sentence for the breach of probation. This is the fifth breach of a short Probation Order and it has to be made clear to all those who receive Probation Orders that if they breach the orders they must face the consequences.
5. On Count 1 the sentence is 9 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment and for the breach of probation on all the relevant offences; 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent on the various offences but consecutive to the other two; so that makes a total of 14 months.
6. We make the Exclusion Order and we think that the right thing is to make it for 18 months from today. But we do not make the Exclusion Order in respect of 3rd category premises; we think that and have said on previous occasions, that it can be thought to be over-harsh to prevent the taking of a meal in a restaurant which happens to serve alcohol. So we do not include 3rd category premises but otherwise we make it as requested by the Crown.
