Mark Christopher James Goodchild (33) entered the flat in December last year and stole a £3,800 watch, mobile phones, car keys and other items, while his friend’s girlfriend was asleep in the same room.
He admitted charges of illegal entry, larceny, drug possession, speeding and being drunk and disorderly. He was jailed for 18 months in the Royal Court yesterday.
The Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, presiding, said a custodial sentence was an inevitable consequence of the offences.
Crown Advocate Richard Pedley, prosecuting, said the speeding matter related to an incident on 12 April last year, when Goodchild drove at 43mph in a 20mph zone in St Helier.
The more serious offending related to 15 December, when Goodchild was found kicking the doors of McDonald’s in the early hours of the morning.
He swore at officers and was arrested for being drunk and disorderly. When searching Goodchild, officers discovered he had in his possession four mobile phones, car keys, identification belonging to the victim, a Breitling watch, cash and a USB stick.
He also stole a games console controller, tobacco and a packet of Tic Tacs. A small amount of cannabis and diazepam were also discovered.
At 1.50am that morning, Goodchild’s friend called the police to report that a number of items had been stolen from his property.
CCTV footage showed the defendant walking to and from the flat and Crown Advocate Pedley said while Goodchild was inside, the victim’s girlfriend was asleep in the same room.
When questioned by the police, Goodchild said he could not remember anything after leaving a friend’s house the previous evening.
He also said he could not recall going to the property or why he did so.
Crown Advocate Pedley said the victims had not been impacted by the incident and all the items had been recovered, adding: ‘The prosecution accepts this was spontaneous and not for revenge.’
He moved for a sentence of 2½ years in prison.
Advocate Julia-Anne Dix, defending, said her client was remorseful and this was an unusual case as the victims did not support the prosecution.
She said: ‘He still cannot understand why he committed these offences. He said he was in a blackout and that is not an excuse for his behaviour, but he cannot understand why he has gone to that address, as there was no animosity between him and [the victim].’
Advocate Dix added that her client had suffered a tragic upbringing and his offending had stemmed from this and his alcohol consumption.
