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 W [2022] JRC 041 (08 February 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_041.html Cite as: [2022] JRC 041, [2022] JRC 41 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Breach of Community Service Order.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith OBE., Commissioner, and Jurats Ronge and Hughes. |
The Attorney General
W
Crown Advocate L. B. Hallam.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The defendant has been referred to the Court by the Attorney General for his failure to comply with a Community Service Order imposed upon him on the 12th February 2021, reduced to 180 hours on appeal, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention, and this for offences of larceny, carrying an offensive weapon and a number of lesser offences. The facts of that offending is set out in the judgment of the Royal Court of the 12th February 2021, (AG v Z and Y [2021] JRC 044).
2. The defendant commenced his work placement on the 19th July 2021, delayed through no fault of his, and by the 18th September 2021 had completed 65 hours. Working from the report of Mr Le Marrec as summarised in Crown Advocate Hallam's skeleton argument, on 25th September 2021 the defendant left his work party at Grand Vaux Youth Centre of his own volition. Mr Le Marrec states that he had been unwilling to accept supervision to perform work as directed or to use the tools correctly.
3. A compliance meeting took place on 1st October 2021 when the defendant apologised for his behaviour and accepted that it had been unacceptable. He was warned about binge drinking at the weekend which had been reported to the Probation Officer. The defendant was reinstated on the scheme and completed a further five hours the following day.
4. On 9th October 2021 the defendant reported to his work party hungover; he was dismissed. On 15th October 2021 there was a further compliance meeting. The defendant was polite and cooperative and said he had learnt his lesson. The defendant was on crutches following a motorcycle accident and provided a medical certificate showing he was unfit for work until 20th November 2021.
5. On the 20th November 2021, the defendant reported for his work group at Samares but he was removed from the session for failing to accept supervision. He had been warned three times about disruptive behaviour and throwing clods of soil. When a Community Service employee arrived to fetch him, the defendant was being disruptive. He said that the scheme "was fucking shit" and said he was going to make a complaint about the supervisors. He was given information as to how do so.
6. Finally, on the 26th November 2021 there was a meeting to discuss the events of the 20th November 2021. The defendant said he had been bullied by Community Service supervisors. Mr Le Marrec explained the difference between bullying and the supervision offered on the scheme. The defendant became animated and left the office.
7. This history as set out by Mr Le Marrec in his report is not contested by the defendant and he admits that he is in breach of the Community Service Order. Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service Order) (Jersey) Law 2001 provides as follows: -
8. The defendant has completed 70 hours Community Service and therefore has 61% of the hours ordered left to complete which equates to 7 months' youth detention.
9. The defendant is now 18 and the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 continue to apply to him. Article 4(2) of that law provides as follows: -
10. That is the only relevant part of that law for these purposes. The defendant does now have a history of failure to respond to a non-custodial penalty and the issue is whether he is either unable or unwilling to respond to them.
11. There is no question in our view in his ability to undertake Community Service and so we are concerned with his willingness to do so. The Probation Service remain willing to supervise him should he persuade the Court that he is willing to comply.
12. There is no authority in what is meant by the words "unwilling to respond to them", but in our view it is not just a question of the defendant stating his willingness to complete his Community Service, notwithstanding his history of non-compliance with the Community Service Order. The Court must take into account that history in order to reach a view as to whether, objectively, the defendant is willing and has shown willingness to complete it.
13. It is a condition of Community Service that the defendant involved performs the work given to him to the satisfaction of the relevant officer, and it is essential to the viability of the scheme that this obligation is complied with. In this case the defendant has shown himself unwilling to accept supervision on a number of occasions and indeed has displayed an attitude of contempt.
14. It would have been helpful to the Court if the defendant had written to the Court explaining his behaviour and trying to persuade us that he will now comply. In these circumstances the Court would ordinarily have no hesitation at all in imposing a sentence of youth detention, but it has decided on balance and with some hesitation to give the defendant one further chance for two reasons:
(i) Mr Le Marrec, has himself recommended that the Community Service Order be continued with a penalty by way of extra hours.
(ii) The defendant does have a good report from the Probation Officer dealing with the Probation Order which has another six months to run.
15. We therefore formerly revoke the Community Service Order and impose an Order of 160 hours Community Service which is the equivalent of 8 months' Youth Detention to be completed by 31st December 2022.
16. The Probation Order will remain in force.
17. We want to say to you W, it really is about time that you showed some sense of maturity. You are 18 now and you are going to be 19 in July. You clearly have a problem with authority, you accept that, it comes through in the report that we received. But we all have to learn to live with authority, each of us, and your life is going to be very difficult if you cannot learn live with authority as well. You must accept the Orders of the supervisory officer and if you do not you will be back here, and the Court will have no sympathy with you at all. Do you understand that.
