Subject-Matter Index

Abuse of trust

sentence

factors to be considered listed—harm to financial reputation of Guernsey may be aggravating factor: McCarthy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 414

usually immediate custodial sentence, length reflecting amount stolen—sentencing bands proposed for general guidance in contested cases—not to be used with arithmetical precision: McCarthy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 414

theft. See Theft

Aggravation of sentence. See Drugs—importation. Drugs—supply. Indecent photographs of children—sentence. Rape—sentence

Appeals. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Appeals), (Sentence—appeals against sentence)

Assault

assault on police officer. See POLICE (Assault on police officer)

excessive force by police officer

police officer restraining citizen without arrest commits assault if response to citizen’s non-cooperation goes beyond generally accepted standards of conduct, e.g. handcuffing driver who refuses to obey officer’s instructions—officer’s conduct judged by same criteria as ordinary citizen: Allan v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [28]

indecent assault. See Indecent assault

sentence

sentencing policy—sentences for violence to be heavy, immediate and custodial, including substantial deterrent element, unless most exceptional mitigation present—wholesale adoption of English Sentencing Guidelines Council’s recommendations on violent offences not possible because less severe than “Guernsey-specific” policies adopted by courts: Ryder v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 288

Attempts. See Murder—attempted murder

Buggery. See Sodomy

Burglary

sentence

mitigation—guilty plea—smaller discount than one-third for guilty plea may be warranted, e.g. if accused violent on arrest, later uncooperative, and rare crime (e.g. commercial burglary) warrants deterrent sentence: Duncombe v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [8]

sentencing policy

deterrent element in sentence not wrong in principle—significant deterrent element appropriate in sentence for rare offence in order to minimize reoccurrence: Duncombe v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [8]

starting points and sentencing bands for burglary suggested by English Sentencing Guidelines Council considered but not adopted wholesale in Guernsey because Guernsey-specific considerations—need for deterrent element in sentencing for rare crime may point to imposition of heavier sentence: Duncombe v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [8]

starting points—6 years’ imprisonment appropriate starting point for commercial burglary if accused violent on arrest and later uncooperative: Duncombe v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [8]

Cannabis. See Drugs—cultivation. Drugs—importation

Child pornography. See Indecent photographs of children

Children

doli incapax

doctrine never clearly incorporated into Guernsey law—child over 12 but under 14 not therefore presumed incapable of criminal intent, and no extra burden on prosecution to rebut presumption by discrete evidence showing child knew actions wrong—prosecution merely to prove criminal act and intent to normal criminal standard: X v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR 265

gross indecency. See Gross indecency with children. Indecent assault—girl between 13 and 16

indecent photographs of children. See Indecent photographs of children

Commercial burglary. See Burglary

Confiscation order. See Drugs—proceeds of trafficking

Conspiracy

importation of drugs. See Drugs—importation

Contempt of court

interference with administration of justice

Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to punish breaches of its orders to enforce compliance and punish interference with administration of justice: Tchenguiz v. Hamedani (C.A.), 2015 GLR 154

Corruption

“corruptly”

“corruptly” in Prevention of Corruption (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2003, s.1 to be given ordinary meaning: De Kock v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2017 GLR 260

inducement or reward

when charging corruption contrary to Prevention of Corruption (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2003, s.1, prosecution not required to specify whether alleged gift inducement or reward: De Kock v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2017 GLR 260

Cultivation of cannabis. See Drugs—cultivation

Dangerous driving. See ROAD TRAFFIC (Dangerous driving)

Degrees of complicity

common design. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—multiple offenders)

Diminished responsibility

application

diminished responsibility introduced into Guernsey law as defence to murder resulting in conviction for manslaughter: Law Officers v. Harvey (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 189

test for diminished responsibility same as English Homicide Act 1957, s.2, i.e. such abnormality of mind that mental responsibility substantially impaired—English jurisprudence to be followed: Law Officers v. Harvey (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 189

burden of proof

defendant bears burden of proving diminished responsibility on balance of probabilities: Law Officers v. Harvey (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 189

sentence

if (a) offender danger to public, indefinite detention appropriate; (b) only minimal residual responsibility, custodial sentence not necessary; and (c) responsibility not minimal, determinate custodial sentence needed, length depending on degree of responsibility and continuing danger to public (with extended sentence licence if appropriate): Law Officers v. Le Sauvage (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [1]

Disclosure of electronic data protected by encryption

failure to disclose information required by notice

accused who refused to provide passcode to enable examination of mobile phone, as required by notice under Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2003, s.46, sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment—not manifestly excessive: Barras v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2021 GLR 372

Doli incapax. See Children—doli incapax

Drugs

addiction. See Drugs—importation

aggravation of sentence. See Drugs—importation. Drugs—supply

being concerned in supply

sentence

Class B drugs—6 months’ immediate imprisonment for being concerned in supply of 2.88 oz. cannabis not manifestly excessive—test whether right-thinking members of public, with full knowledge of all relevant facts, would conclude appellant should not benefit from good fortune of prosecution’s gross error resulting in light sentence on co-offender: Law Officers v. Pang (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [23]

Class B drugs—for trafficking cannabis, immediate custodial sentence unless exceptional circumstances merit suspension—even if exceptional (e.g. co-offender’s light sentence as result of prosecution’s serious misstatement of fact (e.g. stating weight in grams for one offender and in ounces for other)), court may not suspend sentence to deter defendant or protect public—defendant’s good character, youth and early guilty plea not “exceptional,” since common to many cases: Law Officers v. Pang (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [23]

Class B drugs—immediate imprisonment for trafficking cannabis usual, since more serious than simple possession, and deterrent sentence required to protect public: Law Officers v. Pang (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [23]

confiscation order. See Drugs—proceeds of trafficking

couriers. See Drugs—importation. Drugs—possession with intent to supply

cultivation

sentence

aggravation—cultivation of large quantity is aggravation if suggests not for personal use but that offender is dealer—scale of increase of available stock of drugs in Island important sentencing consideration: Marsh v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 1

calculation of yield—court entitled to estimate potential yield, based on plants, seeds, seedlings, etc. seized and sophistication and scale of cultivation process: Marsh v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 1

mitigation—intention that small amount of drug for personal use only may be mitigation—large scale of cultivation may refute claim and suggest offender is dealer: Marsh v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 1

starting points—Richards guidelines on starting points for importation to be followed—no significance in difference between herbal cannabis and cannabis resin as sale price identical—potential yield in cultivation cases, properly estimated, equivalent to actual quantity in importation cases: Marsh v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 1

importation

conspiracy to import—sentence—Richards guidelines on starting points applicable to conspiracy to import prohibited drugs, even though no actual importation occurs—final sentence reduced if non-prohibited drugs imported in error—no increase in stock of prohibited drugs on Island: O’Dette v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 16

couriers—unlikely to “obtain” goods couriered, so as to allow making confiscation order, since “obtaining” requires ownership with power of disposition or control: In re Butler (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [2]

medicinal products

2009 amendment to Import and Export (Control) (Guernsey) Law 1946 incorporates definition of medicinal product under Council Directive 2001/83/EC, art. 1(2)—words to be construed according to natural meaning—cannot infer requirement of medicinal product necessarily to have therapeutic benefit and function of treating or preventing disease: Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

importation of medicinal product, e.g. mephedrone, strict liability offence contrary to Import and Export (Control) (Guernsey) Law 1946, art. 3—once product objectively established as unauthorized medicinal product, irrelevant that defendant could not reasonably foresee later classification as medicinal product: Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

personal use

evidence that drugs for personal use shown by comparing quantity imported with defendant’s rate of drug use, e.g. not unreasonable to assume drugs for personal use if 5.233g. heroin imported and rate of drug use is 0.6g. per day: Woodford v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [3]

importation of small quantities of Class A drugs for personal use to be treated in same way as simple possession—no selection of starting point for sentence needed but circumstances to be considered “in the round,” not treating as simple mathematical exercise based on weight but giving proper consideration to circumstances of accused: Driscoll v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [15]

importation of very small quantity of drugs solely for personal use generally treated leniently—postal importation of 2.95g. cocaine not very small quantity: Barras v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2021 GLR 372

importation of “very small” quantity of drugs solely for personal use generally treated leniently as if offence of possession—not normally lenient approach if larger (but still relatively small) quantity imported for personal use—accused’s addiction not mitigation, but may support claim that drug intended for personal use only: Edwards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR N [26]

method of concealment of small quantity for personal use may be aggravating factor in sentencing: Woodford v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [3]

to distinguish importation of “very small” quantity of drugs for personal use (treated as offence of simple possession), “more than relatively small amount” falling within lower of Richards sentencing bands (treated as trafficking offence) and “relatively small amount” for personal use (treated as between trafficking and simple possession)—not appropriate to have starting point in Richards band for trafficking offences if “relatively small” quantity for personal use: Woodford v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [3]

prescription drugs

unlawful importation poses danger because drugs may enter illicit market—irrelevant that Class A drug (Fentanyl) not dangerous to lawful user if potentially harmful to illicit user: Jeffreys v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 338

sentence

aggravation—aggravating factors may include, inter alia, type and quantity of drugs, role of offender, deliberate involvement (e.g. for financial gain), previous convictions for drug trafficking, use of postal system, and sophistication of method of evading detection (e.g. internal concealment or posting to false recipient): Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

aggravation—elaborate degree of concealment of drugs in petrol tank of car is aggravating factor: Kelly v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2015 GLR 234

aggravation—involving younger person in commission of offence may be aggravation: Law Officers v. Ingram (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 194

aggravation—level of criminality always higher if two drugs imported simultaneously—proper to increase starting point for most serious offence and pass concurrent sentences on convictions for lesser offences: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

aggravation—method of concealment of small quantity for personal use may be aggravating factor: Woodford v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [3]

aggravation—purity of drug not generally aggravating factor unless exceptionally pure or reason to believe drugs to be cut before being sold: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

Class A drugs—8 years’ imprisonment appropriate for offender who conceals drugs in package posted to address not his own, seen on camera taking package and running away, later denying liability when compelling evidence of guilt: Marsh v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 406

Class A drugs—Richards guidelines applicable to all Class A drugs even when only small amounts involved, e.g. substantially less than 1g.—Fentanyl directly comparable with other Class A drugs because of strength and narcotic qualities: Jeffreys v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 338

Class B drugs—Richards guidelines and Turner guidance to be followed, i.e. custodial sentence band to be two-thirds of that for similar quantity of Class A: Law Officers v. Grunte (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR N [9]

Class B drugs—Richards guidelines and Turner guidance to be followed, i.e. custodial sentence band to be two-thirds of that for similar quantity of Class A drug—no new sub-category created to deal with new drug and revised guidelines rarely appropriate—synthetic cannabinoid in powder form treated in same way as other Class B drugs in that form: Hardy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 127

Class B drugs—Richards starting point of 10 years appropriate for bulk importation by sophisticated trading plan of nearly 12 kg. of cannabis resin with street value of £100,000: George v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [10]

Class C drugs—Class C much wider and ever-expanding category of drugs—no general guidelines for sentencing: Lamb v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [24]

Class C drugs—no general guidelines for sentencing, but maximum sentence 10 years’ imprisonment—starting point of 8 years appropriate for importation of 943.5g. ketamine: Lamb v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [24]

Class C drugs—sentence of 5.5 years’ imprisonment from starting point of 8 years for importation of 943.5g. ketamine not manifestly excessive for co-operative co-offender concealing 847g. of consignment in clothes and undertaking importation in order to relieve himself of debt owed to drug supplier—6 years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive for uncooperative co-offender with previous drug trafficking conviction concealing 69.32g. of consignment internally: Lamb v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [24]

importation by two co-accused of Class A drug into Guernsey treated as joint enterprise: Barras v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2021 GLR 372

lowest starting point not appropriate if defendant intended to import drugs for personal gain: Jones v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [27]

may not be appropriate to distinguish offenders’ roles in importation operation for purposes of sentence, and may be inequitable to single out getaway vehicle driver for more severe treatment because of dangerous driving—driving-related sentences may be ordered to run concurrently with sentence for importation: Wickenden v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR N [33]

mitigation—addiction of accused to drug imported not of itself mitigation: Woodford v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [3]

mitigation—addiction to drug imported not normally mitigating factor: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—assistance to police—almost invariably, considerable mitigation for offender’s early and useful assistance in helping authorities prosecute others—discount always to be given for genuine attempt to help—generally, one-half to two-thirds reduction appropriate, depending on quality and quantity of information supplied, willingness of offender to confront others and give evidence against them and degree to which puts himself and family at risk by informing: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—claim that drug for personal use not normally mitigating factor: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—discounts for mitigating factors not simply to be added together—court to consider totality of sentence in light of all circumstances: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—evidence other than defendant’s normally required to support mistaken belief or honest ignorance as to nature, quantity or class of drugs imported—no need for Newton hearing if explanation offered rejected as beyond court’s belief: Kelly v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2015 GLR 234

mitigation—good character—defendant’s previous good character may be mitigating factor: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—guilty plea—guilty plea always significant—generally, one-third discount from sentence starting point appropriate, especially if early indication of plea—lesser discount if no sensible alternative to guilty plea: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—mistaken belief as to nature of drugs not normally mitigating factor unless exceptional circumstances making relevant to sentence: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—mistaken belief or honest ignorance as to nature, quantity or class of drugs imported not normally mitigating factor—“exceptional circumstances” considered: Kelly v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2015 GLR 234

mitigation—no mitigation if UK-resident offender likely to be imprisoned in Guernsey with consequent reduction of parole rights: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

mitigation—personal vulnerability of accused, e.g. emotional dependence on co-accused, appropriately considered as mitigation—no special rules governing such situations: Gallienne v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR N [8]

mitigation—previous conviction for drug trafficking refutes mitigation for good character: Hutchinson v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [2]

mitigation—reduction of sentence justified by offender’s mistaken belief that importing prohibited drugs, when drugs not in fact prohibited—no increase in stock of prohibited drugs on Island: O’Dette v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 16

mitigation—youth—defendant’s youth may be mitigating factor: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

multiple offences involving different drugs—proper to increase Richards starting point for most serious offence and pass concurrent sentences on convictions for lesser offences: O’Dette v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 16

no necessary reduction in final sentence on appeal if court initially selects wrong custodial sentencing band and starting point, if original sentence not manifestly excessive: Law Officers v. Grunte (C.A.), 2005–06 GLR N [9]

personal use—claim that drug for personal use not normally mitigating factor: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

personal use—importation of “very small” quantity of Class A drug for personal use treated as offence of simple possession—more than “relatively small” quantities fall into lower sentencing bands: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

Richards guidelines general in nature and applicable to offences committed for any reason—applicability not restricted to cases involving intention to corrupt and make money: Jeffreys v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 338

starting point—if starting point already reflects accused’s involvement in offence, improper to increase solely because of previous similar offence, for which sentence already served: Hutchinson v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [2]

starting points—guidelines for starting points for importation of Class A drugs in powder form based on weight of drugs: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

starting points—guidelines for starting points for importation of Class A drugs in tablet form based on number of tablets: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

starting points—guidelines for starting points for importation of Class B drugs based on weight of drugs: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

starting points—in determining starting point, court entitled to reject version of events as to quantity or type of drugs without Newton hearing, but hearing may be necessary if court not to proceed on basis of offender’s stated belief: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

starting points—previous conviction for drug offence legitimately used to increase starting point: Hardy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 127

starting points—previous convictions for drug offences legitimately used to increase starting point: Law Officers v. Ingram (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 194

starting points—Richards guidelines not outdated and remain good law: Barras v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2021 GLR 372

uncertainty as to prohibition on importation of substance may only lead to acquittal if offence requires mens rea (e.g. proof of defendant’s knowledge of prohibition): Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

investigation into drug trafficking

report of investigation under Drug Trafficking (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000 may incidentally yield relevant information to aid sentencing even if contains material not adduced or admissible at trial—report compiled to meet civil not criminal standard of proof: Reynolds v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [5]

medicinal products. See Drugs—importation

mephedrone. See Drugs—importation

mitigation of sentence. See Drugs—importation

personal use. See Drugs—cultivation. Drugs—importation. Drugs—possession

possession

sentence

Class A drugs—starting point to be custodial sentence, length to be determined by quantity of drug and individual factors, including mitigation—detailed guidelines inappropriate for simple possession—fine normally inadequate and leniency justified only if possession of minute quantity—1.1g.–2.5g. Cocaine not minute quantities and sentences of 6–9 months justified: Bassford v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 330

guidelines to be followed and factors to be considered: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

importation of “very small” quantity of Class A drug for personal use treated as offence of simple possession—more than “relatively small” amounts fall into lower sentencing bands for importation: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

procedure for simple possession to be used as sentencing model for importation of small quantities of Class A drugs for personal use—no selection of starting point for sentence needed but circumstances to be considered “in the round,” not treating as simple mathematical exercise based on weight but giving proper consideration to circumstances of accused: Driscoll v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [15]

possession with intent to supply

sentence

Class A drugs—possession of Fentanyl gel patches with intent to supply to be treated as within lowest range of Richards starting points even though weight less than 1g.—justified by strength and value of drug and serious dangers associated with abuse: Noyon v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 169

sentencing information—may consider report of investigation under Drug Trafficking (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, even if contains material, e.g. admissions by accused, not adduced or admissible at trial—report designed to calculate benefit obtained by accused may incidentally yield information relevant to sentencing—report compiled to meet civil not criminal standard of proof: Reynolds v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [5]

prescription drugs. See Drugs—importation

proceeds of trafficking

confiscation order

defendant stored large quantity of drugs for 1 month but claimed only small quantity was his reward for doing so—for purposes of confiscation order, defendant considered to have benefited from entire amount—drugs under his control for longer than mere custodianship: Law Officers v. Robilliard (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [11]

no confiscation order unless trafficked goods “obtained” by offender—courier or custodian unlikely to “obtain” goods, since requires ownership with power of disposition or control: In re Butler (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [2]

prosecution to prove on balance of probabilities that relevant expenditure to trigger assumption in Drug Trafficking (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, s.4(3)(b) that defendant’s expenditure in 6-year period prior to institution of proceedings met from proceeds of trafficking: Gilbert v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [30]

under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.24, “sentence” includes confiscation order made under Drug Trafficking (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000 and appeal therefore lies against confiscation order: Gilbert v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [30]

under Drug Trafficking (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, s.4(3)(b), court may infer expenditure equal to street value of drugs in defendant’s possession—“any expenditure” may embrace “virtuous” expenditure, e.g. mortgage repayments, household bills and child maintenance—defendant may establish that such payments met from legitimate income sources: Gilbert v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [30]

sentence. See Drugs—importation

Class B drugs—Richards guidelines apply to importation of ADB-Butinaca, a synthetic cannabinoid in powder form: Law Officers v. Bickley (Royal Ct.), 2022 GLR 29

sentencing principles. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—sentencing principles)

starting points for sentence. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—sentencing principles)

suffering smoking of cannabis

not necessary in all cases for witness giving evidence of presence of smell of cannabis (e.g. for purposes of offence under Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1974, s.7(d)) to have formal or paper qualification in detection and distinction of smells—should have sufficient experience of and familiarity with smell for court to give credit to evidence: Guest v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [1]

supply

sentence

aggravation—aggravating factors include offender’s approaching buyer, rather than buyer’s approaching offender first, and supplying on premises of which partner licensee: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

guidelines to be followed and factors to be considered: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

since supply of Class A drugs usually only detected by undercover officers, time and expense of detection almost always warrant significant custodial sentence: Richards v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 247

trafficking. See Drugs—being concerned in supply. Drugs—proceeds of trafficking

Evasion of prohibition on exportation of military items

sentence

appeal dismissed against 12 months’ imprisonment for attempted exportation of ballistic shields and body armour to Macau: Fridman v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2024 GLR N [1]

Exportation of military items. See Evasion of prohibition on exportation of military items

Fentanyl. See Drugs—importation. Drugs—possession with intent to supply

Firearms. See FIREARMS

Forfeiture. See Indecent photographs of children—sentence

Fraud

investigation by H.M. Procureur

Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1991 not ultra vires because of its extra-territorial effect—not repugnant to UK legislation—assistance to foreign states in worldwide fight against crime essential to good government of Guernsey: Bassington v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 180

exercise of powers under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1991 to investigate serious or complex fraud amenable to judicial review: Bassington v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 180

reasons for notice—whether reasons required for notice under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, s.1 depends on circumstances—employee of subsidiary to company under investigation entitled to succinct summary of elements of offences and how offenders linked to his employer: Holland v. H.M. Procureur (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [22]

“tipping-off” provisions

if prohibition of disclosure under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1999, s.2A genuinely conflicts with trustee’s duty to disclose trust information to beneficiaries, Royal Court has discretion to assist trustee by considering, initially in private, whether prejudice to investigation alleged by H.M. Procureur justified: A Ltd. v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 593

trustee need not disclose notice of investigation to beneficiaries of trust unless information needed for proper administration of trust—if compliance with notice affects neither assets of trust nor amounts to improper administration, disclosure not required and no right of action by beneficiaries for breach of duty exists: A Ltd. v. H.M. Procureur (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 593

under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1991, may investigate serious and complex fraud in execution of letter of request from foreign government, even if fraud purely fiscal in nature: Holland v. H.M. Procureur (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [22]

under Criminal Justice (Fraud Investigation) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1991, s.1, may require information on suspected offences of serious or complex fraud—recipient of request may be entitled to be informed about offences and connection to investigation, but H.M. Procureur not obliged to disclose sensitive or confidential information and, unless factual challenge, need not provide information under oath: Holland v. H.M. Procureur (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [22]

“Glassing”. See Unlawful wounding—sentence

Grievous bodily harm

inflicting grievous bodily harm. See Inflicting grievous bodily harm

Grievous bodily harm with intent

sentence

starting point

8 years legitimate starting point for unprovoked, sustained and remorseless attack on lone woman at night in isolated area, with serious psychological impact—without personal mitigation and with 25% reduction for early plea, final sentence of 6 years not excessive: Ryder v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 288

vicious and unprovoked attack on innocent stranger by aggressive youths with violent records justifies starting point of 6 years—final sentence, reduced by guilty plea and other mitigation to 4½ years, not excessive: Truffitt v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [16]

Gross indecency with children

belief that under age

general presumption that mens rea necessary part of offence—in offence contrary to Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.1, Crown to prove accused did not believe complainant child not under 16: Ascolese v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 196

dates of offence and trial

if offence committed before 1985 but tried later, to be tried as common law offence but sentence passed under Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.1, with maximum of 5 years: G v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 190

sentence

4 years not excessive but totality of 12 years for consecutive sentences of gross indecency manifestly excessive: G v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 190

anomalous that maximum sentence for indecent assault on child is life imprisonment (common law) and for gross indecency with child is 5 years (Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.1), as facts justifying gross indecency charge frequently more serious than those for indecent assault—maximum sentences should be considered in review of sexual offences: G v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 190

sentence in historic sex abuse case to be passed according to provisions current at date of trial if less severe than those current when offence committed—offender committing gross indecency with child before 1985 (when maximum sentence life imprisonment) and tried later, to be sentenced under Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.1 (when maximum sentence 5 years): G v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 190

Heterosexual offences. See Sodomy

Historic sex abuse cases. See Gross indecency with children—dates of offence and trial

Homosexual offences. See Sodomy

Importation of drugs. See Drugs—importation

Importation of medicinal products. See Drugs—importation

Indecent assault

elements of offence

since customary law offence in Guernsey, courts may consider development of offence in English case law and commentaries before Offences against Girls (Availability of Defences) Law 1956—general presumption that mens rea necessary part of offence—mens rea negatived by reasonable belief that victim consenting—intention to assault or recklessness as to assault necessary—intentional touching in circumstances of indecency (including use of indecent words) sufficient—indecency to be judged as such by right-minded people: Ascolese v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 196

girl between 13 and 16

mistake as to age—general presumption that mens rea necessary part of offence limited by Offences against Girls (Availability of Defences) Law 1956, s.2—defence for man under 24 (without previous conviction for similar offence) who reasonably believes consenting girl to be over 16: Ascolese v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 196

no restriction on prosecution of indecent assault consisting of unlawful sexual intercourse, even if prosecution under Loi relative à la Protection des Femmes et des Filles Mineures 1914, s.3 prescribed: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

reform needed of Loi relative à la Protection des Femmes et des Filles Mineures 1914 concerning unlawful sexual intercourse: Hewlett v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [2]

girl under 13

no restriction on prosecution of indecent assault consisting of unlawful sexual intercourse—no prescription period for prosecution under Loi relative à la Protection des Femmes et des Filles Mineures 1914, s.2: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

sentence

5 years’ imprisonment appropriate starting point for indecent assault consisting of unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

if unlawful sexual intercourse charged as indecent assault because prosecution under Loi relative à la Protection des Femmes et des Filles Mineures 1914, s.3 prescribed, court not limited to maximum sentence under 1914 Law—statutory maximum to be considered: Hewlett v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [2]

mitigation—complainant’s previous sexual experience rarely mitigating factor, merely absence of aggravating factor—not mitigation that underage complainant had also been victim of other sexual offending: Hewlett v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [2]

Indecent photographs of children

age of child

Magistrate to determine age of child in film without reference to expert evidence: Mauger v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [13]

meaning of “indecent”

in absence of definition in Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.3(1)(a), Magistrate to decide whether film of young girl “indecent,” i.e. whether offends against recognized standards of propriety in today’s society without assistance of expert evidence: Mauger v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [13]

sentence

adoption of English sentencing practices for present and future Guernsey cases—detailed discussion of nature of material, extent of offenders’ involvement, non-custodial and custodial sentencing, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the future development of Guernsey sentencing in this field: Gunter v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 147

aggravation

complainant resident in Bailiwick—only modest weight given if images not on internet and not circulated by applicant: Hewlett v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [2]

“initial figure” selected under Wicks guidelines subject to increase for aggravating factors—doubling initial figure for aggravation at outer limits of permissible uplift and any higher multiplier beyond spirit of guidelines: Le Gallez v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR N [2]

lesser offence of same nature may be aggravation increasing initial figure for sentencing for principal offence even though also separately charged: Le Gallez v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR N [2]

concurrent and consecutive sentences

child pornography—multiple offences involving different seriousness—proper to increase sentence for most serious offence and pass concurrent sentences on convictions for lesser offences—in appropriate case, short separate consecutive sentence permissible for lesser offence: Le Gallez v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR N [2]

multiple offences involving different seriousness—proper to increase sentence for most serious offence and pass concurrent sentences on convictions for lesser offences—in appropriate case, short separate consecutive sentence permissible for lesser offence: Le Gallez v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR N [2]

fine may be appropriate sentence for conviction under Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.3(1)(a)—court to consider, inter alia, accused’s previous good behaviour, deliberate nature of criminal behaviour, seriousness of offence and whether images or film used for commercial gain—appellant’s understanding that not to be prosecuted not significant mitigation: Mauger v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [13]

forfeiture

forfeiture of computer in discretion of court under Police Property and Forfeiture (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2006, s.3 if used to commit or facilitate offence, includes forfeiture of data on it—failure of court to require return of non-criminal data to offender may make overall sentence “manifestly excessive” if has financially adverse effect on him under s.3(5): Wright v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [9]

forfeiture of indecent data on computer under Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, ss. 7(3) and 9(4)(b) not to include forfeiture of computer itself or other non-indecent data—prosecution may have to separate different types of data before forfeiture, as statutory powers construed strictly: Wright v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [9]

Guernsey courts to determine appropriate sentencing levels for offences on Island—wrong to assume English sentencing levels correct for Guernsey cases unless significant differences in social or other conditions: Wicks v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 482

if images arose from sexual relationship for which applicant sentenced to imprisonment for indecent assault, sentence for possession of indecent images to run concurrently: Hewlett v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR N [2]

new guidelines laid down for sentencing levels in child pornography cases, based on degree of offender’s involvement combined with nature of image involved (based on COPINE classification)—detailed discussion of starting points and sentencing ranges for different categories of offence, with listing of aggravating and mitigating factors and sentencing discounts—applicable to all offences in or derived from Protection of Children (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1985, s.3(1), as amended, but not to simple possession under s.3A(1): Wicks v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 482

Inflicting grievous bodily harm

sentence

sentencing policy—no general principle that youth necessarily to receive shorter sentence for crime than adult, as other factors, e.g. need for deterrent and seriousness of violence, may outweigh age-related reduction: de Garis v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [21]

starting point—4 years legitimate starting point for grievous bodily harm by youth with no violent record—no general principle that youth necessarily to receive shorter sentence than adult, as other factors may outweigh age-related reduction—final sentence of 31 months’ detention deterrent and not manifestly excessive for unprovoked, potentially life-threatening attack on innocent lone woman: de Garis v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR N [21]

Insanity

diminished responsibility. See Diminished responsibility

M’Naghten Rules

test for responsibility of insane offender set out in M’Naghten Rules to be followed in Guernsey, i.e. such defect of reason, from disease of mind, that did not know nature or quality of act or that act wrong—Rules not contrary to European Convention, art. 5(1)(e) prohibition on unlawful detention: Law Officers v. Harvey (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 189

Interpretation of penal statutes. See STATUTES (Interpretation—criminal and penal statutes)

Ketamine. See Drugs—importation

Knife crime. See Murder—attempted murder. Offensive weapons—possession in public place. Robbery—sentence

Life imprisonment. See Rape—sentence

Manslaughter

diminished responsibility. See Diminished responsibility

gross negligence manslaughter

evidence

message between nurses accused of gross negligence manslaughter, which might be considered evidence of callous disregard for deceased, probative and relevant—not excluded under Police Powers and Criminal Evidence (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2003, s.78(1): Law Officers v. Prestidge (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 314

report of nursing expert not admissible in trial for gross negligence manslaughter if impermissibly and erroneously addresses legal issues: Law Officers v. Prestidge (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 314

indictment—one count indictment against two defendants—prosecution case that defendants, professional nurses, owed joint obligation during relevant period to make required observations of suicidal patient—individual acts or omissions need not be specified—Jurats to consider evidence as whole: Law Officers v. Prestidge (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 301

Jurats to determine whether, having regard to risk of death, defendants’ conduct so bad in all circumstances as to amount to criminal act or omission: Law Officers v. Prestidge (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 301

prosecution to prove (i) defendant owed duty of care to deceased; (ii) defendant breached that duty of care; (iii) reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that defendant’s actions or omissions constituting breach of duty exposed deceased to obvious and serious risk of death; (iv) breach of duty caused or made significant contribution to deceased’s death; and (v) departure of defendant’s conduct from proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving risk of death, was such that breach of duty can properly be characterized as gross negligence and therefore criminal: Law Officers v. Prestidge (Royal Ct.), 2019 GLR 301

provocation. See Provocation

Medicinal products. See Drugs—importation

Mens rea

doli incapax. See Children—doli incapax

gross indecency with children. See Gross indecency with children—belief that under age

indecent assault. See Indecent assault—elements of offence. Indecent assault—girl between 13 and 16

Mephedrone. See Drugs—importation

Mitigation of sentence. See Drugs—importation. Rape—sentence

M’Naghten Rules. See Insanity—M’Naghten Rules

Money laundering

sentence. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Proceeds of criminal conduct—money laundering)

Murder

attempted murder

sentence

6 years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive for horrendously severe and pre-meditated attack on wife with hammer and knives following marriage breakdown—mitigated by serious mental illness and distress at inability to contact children: Skinner v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [3]

aggravation—aggravating factors include premeditation, aggression, use of knife and lasting mental impact on victim: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

context of domestic conflict—in absence of domestic authority, court to follow English sentencing practice: Skinner v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [3]

court may have regard to English Sentencing Guidelines Council’s non-binding guidelines in determining sentence for attempted murder—no ground of appeal if court departs from guidelines, unless sentence manifestly excessive: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

court may have regard to English Sentencing Guidelines Council’s non-binding guidelines in determining sentence for attempted murder—suggested sentencing range of 12–20 years from 15-year starting point for premeditated offence involving violence and lasting physical or mental harm—guidelines not to be imported wholesale, since local considerations may justify heavier sentence: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

court not to double-count factors in determining sentence—not double-counting if aggravating factors considered in determining level of seriousness of offence and in increasing sentence to be imposed from within a range for that level: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

deterrent element to be included: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

imprisonment for 15 years justified for premeditated offence involving use of knife and considerable aggression, and with lasting mental impact on victim—deterrent element included in sentence: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

starting points—15-year starting point appropriate for premeditated offence involving violence and lasting physical or mental harm, but may be increased by general or Guernsey-specific aggravating factors, e.g. use of knife and considerable aggression, lasting mental impact on victim, and need for deterrent element in sentence: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 471

diminished responsibility. See Diminished responsibility

provocation. See Provocation

self-defence. See Self-defence

Newton hearing. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—Newton hearing)

Obstruction of police officer in execution of duty

duty

under Offences against Police Officers (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1963, s.1(2), “duty” may include, inter alia, keeping peace, detecting and preventing crime, protecting property from criminal injury and bringing offenders to justice—“obstructs” means makes more difficult for police to execute duty—“preventing crime” includes setting up police speed trap at roadside, as both deterrent and detection method: Bullock v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [14]

execution of duty

if two officers required for specific crime detection, e.g. operating speed camera, both acting in execution of duty, even if one 20 yards away answering official phone call: Bullock v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [14]

Offensive weapons

knife crime. See Murder—attempted murder. Offensive weapons—possession in public place. Robbery—sentence

possession in public place

sentence

consecutive sentences for use of knife in assault in public place exceptionally justified if court wishes to stress seriousness of knife crime: Pirito v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [21]

immediate custodial sentence normally appropriate for possession of knife or other bladed weapon, especially if exposed or used aggressively: Pirito v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [21]

Personal use of drugs. See Drugs—importation

Possession of drugs. See Drugs—possession with intent to supply

Possession of indecent photographs of children. See Indecent photographs of children

Possession of offensive weapon. See Offensive weapons—possession in public place

Prescription. See PRESCRIPTION (Criminal prescription)

Prescription drugs. See Drugs—importation

Presumption of mens rea. See Strict liability—presumption of mens rea

Proceeds of criminal conduct

confiscation order

criminal procedure. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Proceeds of criminal conduct)

Proceeds of drug trafficking. See Drugs—proceeds of trafficking

Proceeds of trafficking. See Drugs—proceeds of trafficking

Provocation

burden of proof

burden on Crown to negative provocation not on accused to establish it: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

elements of defence

accused suddenly and temporarily provoked by things said or done by victim or others and not by own bad temper—Jurats to consider seriousness of provocation for accused personally—to decide whether person with self-control of ordinary, sober person of appellant’s age and sex would have lost self-control and acted as accused did—ordinary person not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious but having powers of self-control expected of fellow citizens in today’s society—successful defence on charge of murder results in acquittal of murder and conviction for manslaughter: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

judge’s summing-up

directions to Jurats not to be considered in isolation from his recital of facts and evidence, evidence itself, and detailed consideration in closing address by accused’s advocate of potentially provocative acts: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

Rape

aggravation of sentence. See Rape—sentence

attempted rape. See Rape—sentence

genuine but mistaken belief in consent makes accused not guilty—guilty if knowledge of lack of consent or reckless as to consent, i.e. not caring whether or nor consent but pressing on regardless: Barnes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 521

elements of offence

man commits rape if (a) has sexual intercourse with woman without her consent at time; and (b) knows it is without consent or reckless whether or not consents: Barnes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 521

sentence

3 years’ imprisonment and 3 years’ extended sentence supervision not unduly lenient for rape by 17-year-old of 14-year-old victim: Law Officers v. Trenchard (C.A.), 2024 GLR 146

7 years’ imprisonment not excessive starting point for 3 counts of rape against exceptionally naïve 11/12-year-old girl, groomed by offender: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

aggravation—aggravating factors listed: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

aggravation—previous sexually predatory behaviour; victim exceptionally naïve 11/12-year-old girl, groomed by offender; 3 separate acts of rape: Hastie v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 60

in absence of relevant Guernsey authority, court may consider English case law and Sentencing Guidelines Council’s guidance for starting points and sentences—for multiple offences, guidance suggests starting point of 15 years for adult offender and final sentencing range of 13–19 years—special local factors, e.g. size of Island and impact on local people, may justify use of court’s powers to order extended determinate sentence and licence period, even if young offender: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

life imprisonment

court to make accused aware if considering life sentence so that accused may make relevant submissions—not following this procedure not of itself ground of appeal against life sentence, but may lead to other grounds: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

to justify discretionary life imprisonment, determinate sentence to be clearly wrong, offence to be sufficiently serious to support long sentence and offender so unstable that impossible reliably to determine when no longer poses risk of serious harm to public—in assessing seriousness, court to consider all evidence concerning degree of harm to victim, level of culpability of offender, and level of risk posed to society by offender: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

mitigation—mitigating factors listed: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

reference pursuant to Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.43B for review of sentence—sentence unduly lenient if unreasonable: Law Officers v. Trenchard (C.A.), 2024 GLR 146

starting point for sentence to include significant deterrent element: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

starting point of 6–11 years based on English Sentencing Guideline—aggravating factors (including photographing offences) and mitigating factors (including previous good character) considered in setting starting point—10 years justified as starting point for gang rape, multiple acts of depravity and abuse of helpless woman—common starting point for several offenders acting jointly based on joint responsibility, irrespective of personal involvement: Pinto v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2013 GLR 83

starting point of 7 years—aggravation provided by youth of victim and accused’s previous criminal record of sex offence against boy—extended sentence licence (5 years) legitimate to prevent future offending and enable rehabilitation: Presland v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR N [11]

starting point of 8 years if aggravated—aggravation if lasting psychological consequences for victim, e.g. ongoing fear of men and avoidance of contact, deterioration in relationship with partner, and if serious violation of security, e.g. stranger violating security of victim’s bedroom—aggravation even if no entry with intent to rape or commit other crime: Barnes v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 521

starting point of 16 years and extended sentence of 12 years and 6-year licence period appropriate for youth committing multiple offences using violence—aggravating and mitigating factors discussed: Burton v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 438

two 14-year-olds sexually assaulted and raped 14-year-old victim—offenders sentenced to 2 years 9 months’ youth detention and 2 years 3 months youth detention—H.M. Procureur’s reference under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, s.43B refused—sentences might be lenient but not outside range which trial court could reasonably consider appropriate: Law Officers v. D1 (C.A.), 2024 GLR N [2]

Road traffic offences. See ROAD TRAFFIC

Robbery

sentence

aggravation—use of violent force and knife causing injury to victim aggravating factors reflected in sentence: Bryant v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [11]

mitigation—reduction in sentence, e.g. one-third, may be warranted if young offender co-operates with police, pleads guilty at earliest opportunity and asks for further offences to be considered, if originally receives longer sentence than uncooperative co-accused without criminal record: Bryant v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [11]

sentencing bands—court may consider starting points and sentencing bands for robbery suggested by English Sentencing Guidelines Council, but guidelines not to be imported wholesale because Guernsey-specific considerations may point to imposition of heavier sentence for offences against person: Bryant v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [11]

starting points—8 years’ youth detention appropriate starting point if robbery involves violent force, knife and injury to victim: Bryant v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR N [11]

Self-defence

aggression by accused

if accused starts fight, acts in revenge or knows that need not be violent, direction on honest belief that necessary to use force in self-defence may become redundant—to be given nevertheless if facts in issue: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

burden of proof

burden on Crown to negative self-defence not on accused to establish it: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

elements of defence

to consider self-defence as accused honestly believed facts to be—Jurats to consider whether accused honestly believed it necessary to use force to defend himself and then whether type and amount of force he used was reasonable—rapid response to attack without time to think may weigh in favour of reasonableness—deliberate use of disproportionate force, or use of more than necessary for mere defence, makes unreasonable—failure to retreat before using self-defence not conclusive but factor to be considered in deciding whether necessary to use force and its reasonableness— successful defence of self-defence results in acquittal: Rouget v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 306

Sentence. See Assault—sentence. Burglary—sentence. Diminished responsibility—sentence. Drugs—cultivation. Drugs—importation. Drugs—possession. Drugs—possession with intent to supply. Drugs—sentence. Drugs—supply. Evasion of prohibition on exportation of military items—sentence. Grievous bodily harm with intent—sentence. Indecent assault—sentence. Indecent photographs of children—sentence. Murder—attempted murder. Offensive weapons—possession in public place. Rape—sentence. Robbery—sentence. Theft—sentence. Unlawful wounding—sentence. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Bail—absconding on bail), (Sentence)

Sodomy

illegality of consensual heterosexual sodomy under Loi Relative à la Sodomie 1929, s.1 may be in breach of European Convention, art. 8, since consensual homosexual sodomy between adults in private no longer offence under Guernsey law: Afonso v. Law Officers (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [17]

Starting points for sentence. See Murder—attempted murder. Rape—sentence. Robbery—sentence. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Sentence—sentencing principles)

Strict liability

importation of medicinal products

importation of medicinal product, e.g. mephedrone, strict liability offence contrary to Import and Export (Control) (Guernsey) Law 1946, art. 3—offence defined by what happened, not what defendant did, Law directed at regulating imports and exports, rather than “truly criminal” conduct, restrictions in Law for public safety and strict liability aids regulation by encouraging determination of nature of product and acting as deterrent: Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

presumption of mens rea

presumption that criminal offence requires mens rea—presumption particularly strong if character of offence “truly criminal”—only displaced if clearly effect of statute dealing with issues of social concern (e.g. public safety), and strict liability effective to promote objects of statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent commission of offence: Law Officers v. Le Billon (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 128

Supply of drugs. See Drugs—supply

Synthetic drugs. See Drugs—importation

Theft

criminal abuse of trust. See Theft—sentence

sentence

factors to be considered listed—harm to financial reputation of Guernsey may be aggravating factor: McCarthy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 414

offences involving abuse of trust—usually immediate custodial sentence, length reflecting amount stolen—sentencing bands proposed for general guidance in contested cases—not to be used with arithmetical precision: McCarthy v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 414

“Tipping-off” provisions. See Fraud—investigation by H.M. Procureur

Unlawful sexual intercourse. See Indecent assault

Unlawful wounding

intent

verdicts of not guilty of wounding with intent and guilty of unlawful wounding not inconsistent—Jurats unsure of drunk defendant’s specific intentions but sure of basic intent: Jones v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2016 GLR 243

sentence

“glassing” normally sufficiently serious to merit custodial sentence, even for young offender never in custody before—only appropriate to suspend sentence in exceptional circumstances—suspension may indicate tolerance of unacceptable “gratuitous and drunken violence” in Guernsey: Blumson v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR N [18]

Violence. See Assault. Grievous bodily harm with intent

Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

intent