Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number - breach of community service order.

[2012]JRC162

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 September 2012

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Le Cornu and Crill.

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher John Cornick

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following a breach of a Community Service Order imposed on 23^rd March, 2012, on the following charges:

1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Conclusions:

Breach of Community Service Order: 12 months' imprisonment.

Application for Community Service Order and Probation Order to be discharged

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER:

1.        On the 23^rd March, 2012, the Royal Court gave the defendant a chance to avoid a custodial sentence for serious offences of being concerned in the supply of a kilogram of cannabis worth some £8,000, for which a custodial sentence would ordinarily have been inevitable.  When sentencing, the Deputy Bailiff said this:-

"2. As the Crown has said, the usual approach is to apply what are called the Campbell guidelines in which case we would have started with a custodial sentence starting point of 2 years' imprisonment.  You have committed an offence which merits prison.  You have supplied, and would be supplying, people of your own age, maybe introducing some of them to these drugs.  However, on this occasion the Court has had regard to everything which is in the background reports and to what your counsel has said.  We have noted your guilty plea, and we have noted the value of the guilty plea especially in relation to the first Count on the Indictment.  We have certainly noted the fact that you are substantially of good character, and I say that because although you have committed some juvenile offences, they were committed some time ago and there were the additional personal circumstances which affected you last year.

3. We are going to take a chance with you and put you on probation for 12 months.  We are going to sentence you to 200 hours' of community service.  That is the equivalent of 14 months' imprisonment and it is a community service that you must do.  Serve it you must.  It is not in any sense a let off.  If you do not serve your community service you will be brought back to this Court and you can be sentenced again for the offences you have committed."

Finally, the Deputy Bailiff said this:-

"The onus is on you to take this chance that is being offered to you and it is being offered to you substantially because you have the chance of some employment, and in these circumstances we think that it is worth taking that chance with you.  You are being trusted."

2.        The defendant has breached that trust by failing to attend three scheduled working parties.  He latterly and out of time produced a medical certificate for the first failure, but his excuse for the second and third failures were that he overslept as a result of being tired from work.  He did not bother to contact the supervisor to explain.  He had received, as all persons who attend the scheme, clear advice on his obligations and, in this case, a final warning.  There can be no doubt that he was fully aware of his obligations in relation to community service.  The Probation Department say this in their report to us today:-

"Until Mr Cornick is able to prioritise his commitment to Community Service there must be doubt about him completing the Order satisfactorily.  Unless Mr Cornick is able to convince the Court of his willingness and motivation to satisfy the Order I must respectfully suggest that the Order be revoked.  Should the Court be satisfied he remains suitable for the scheme then I recommend that a breach should be marked by a penalty of hours to reflect his noncompliance."

3.        Miss Corbel, for the defendant, has pointed out the progress that he has made under the probation order; he has completed the "Offending is not the only Choice" programme and is part way through the core programme.  He has now changed to another employer where, apparently, there will be less pressure upon him.  We have also, of course, considered everything else that has been put forward to us in the letters and the reports prepared for this hearing.

4.        Community service, often wrongly regarded by the public as a soft option, is an important tool available to the Court which enables offenders to be punished and to serve their debt to society by remaining in the community and there, in many cases, to retain useful employment and be able to support themselves and any dependants.  If it ever came to pass the defendants felt able to breach their obligations to those administering the scheme, then it will fall into disrepute.  It is, therefore, in the public interest that defendants who do breach their obligations to the scheme, without justification, will be treated firmly, which will often mean that they must serve the custodial sentence for which community service was an alternative.

5.        Having regard to the words of the Deputy Bailiff when the defendant was being sentenced and his failure to discharge his obligations without any justification we are not convinced of his willingness and motivation to complete the order.

6.        We, therefore, discharge the community service order and the probation order and we impose a custodial sentence of 11 months.

Authorities

AG v Cornick [2012] JRC 064.