Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC189

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th December 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

Carla Louise Pita

1 count of:

Breach of Probation Order and Community Service Order of 19th December 2005.

Conclusions:

Count 3:	11 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	19 months' youth detention.
Count 6:	1 month's youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Revoke Probation and Community Service Orders.

18 months' youth detention as moved for by the Crown.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Pita, the Court gave you a very clear warning last December that you stood at a cross roads in your life and that you were in peril of a custodial sentence, and I will remind you what the Court said:

"You are an intelligent young woman.  You have the support of your mother and there is no reason at all why you should not succeed if you apply your mind to it.  It will not be easy.  You will have to overcome great difficulties and you will have to apply yourself whole heartedly to the task.  The stakes are high but we want you to know that the members of the Court want you to succeed."

2.        The Probation and after care service has offered you all possible support, but within weeks of that Order of the Court you were failing to turn up at work party sessions and giving feeble excuses for your absences.  In February you were given a further chance by the Attorney General, but again you failed to comply.

3.        We have read your letter and we understand everything that you say, but I am afraid that you now have to learn the hard way that when the Court gives you a last chance to avoid custody that is exactly what the Court means.  We have taken into consideration the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law which provides that the Court shall not pass a sentence of youth detention or custody upon a young person unless it considers no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate.  We think that your failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and your apparent inability or unwillingness to respond to them are grounds for imposing a custodial sentence in this case.

4.        There is one more thing that we want to say to you in relation to your daughter, and it is a very important one.  We do not think that people who take heroin deserve, or are fit, to have the custody of young children.  It may not yet be too late for you, but if you value your relationship with your daughter you will need to think very carefully during the next 12 months whether you want to continue associating with those who take drugs, or contribute to, or even cause the chaos that there is in your life. 

5.        The conclusions are granted.  We revoke the Probation Order and the Community Service Order and we impose a sentence of 18 months' youth detention.

Authorities

AG -v- Bevis and Pita [2005] JRC 176.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law.