Late night burglar jailed

Saturday 21 March 2020

A man who burgled a childhood friend of his £4,000 watch, car keys, wallet and phones has been jailed for a year-and-a-half.

Mark Christopher James Goodchild (33) was yesterday sentenced in the Royal Court for a string of offences, including illegally entering his friend’s flat in the early hours of the morning to steal a number items, including a Breitling watch worth nearly £4,000.

Charged with speeding, illegal entry, drunk and disorderly, possession of a Class B controlled drug and possession of a Class C controlled drug, the 33-year-old has been sentenced to 18 months’ jail-time. 

Crown Advocate Richard Pedley, prosecuting, explained that in the early hours of 15 December last year, Goodchild was brought to the attention of officers on patrol because he was “causing a disturbance outside McDonald’s”.

Pictured: The case was heard in the Royal Court.

The Court was told that he “had been kicking the door because they had closed for the night and the staff had refused to let him in” and “he had also been abusive”.

At this point, Goodchild was said to be “unsteady on his feet and his words were slurred” and he swore at officers.

After being arrested for being drunk and disorderly, four mobile phones, a luxury watch, car keys, a wallet, cash and ID cards in the name of another man were found on Goodchild’s person.

He was also caught with “a small piece of cannabis resin and a strip of 12 diazepam tablets” – these gave rise to two separate charges.

That night, the man – Mr B* – to whom the stolen property belonged, contacted Police to report that someone had entered his address and taken a number of items.

CCTV footage captured Goodchild entering the address in question and Mr B identified the defendant, saying they “were childhood friends”.

The prosecutor told the Court that when Goodchild was interviewed about the offences “he stated that he didn’t remember anything after leaving a friend’s house to go to town at six or seven o’clock in the evening.

“He said that he had one shot of Portuguese Firewater throughout the evening. He confirmed he knew [Mr B] and where he lived, and that he had last seen him a couple of months previously.”

Goodchild also “could not provide a reason for why he had the stolen property with him when arrested, but that some must have belonged to [Mr B]".

When Goodchild was shown the body-worn footage - recorded by the arresting officers – the defendant said he was ashamed of his behaviour. 

Goodchild was also sentenced for speeding on another occasion when he was caught driving 43 miles per hour in a 20-zone.

All of the stolen property was safely returned to Mr B.

The Crown Advocate invited the Court to impose a two-and-a-half year prison sentence.

Pictured: The prosecution asked the Court to impose a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence.

Advocate Julia-Anne Dix was representing Goodchild. She described this as “a very unusual case” because the ‘victims’ of the illegal entry – Mr B and his girlfriend, who was asleep in the flat when Goodchild stole the items – did not support the prosecution and displayed a “lack of distress” following the incident.

The other reason this case is unusual, the defence lawyer argued, is her client’s “underlying psychological problems".  

Advocate Dix said that “he just cannot understand” why he did what he did and reiterated that Goodchild was “deeply ashamed for his actions”.

She added that he is “very relieved that all of the items have been returned”.

Giving some details about Goodchild’s personal background, Advocate Dix spoke of some underlying mental health issues stemming back to “a very tragic upbringing”. 

In light of these issues, Advocate Dix rather asked that the Court impose a non-custodial sentence to ensure that her client gets the help he needs to address his problems.

The case was heard by Jurats Olsen and Christensen.

Handing down the Court’s decision, the Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, explained that the Jurats had to decide whether everything said by Goodchild’s lawyer amounted to “sufficient exceptional circumstances” to depart from the Court’s usual sentencing policy.

However, and “with some regret”, the Bailiff said the Court decided “that they do not”.

Despite this, the Bailiff said that “greater allowance” could be made for the points made by Advocate Dix in Goodchild’s favour and they decided to impose the lesser sentence of 18 months. 

Addressing Goodchild directly, the Bailiff said that the Court was “hopeful and confident” that the defendant could use the time in custody to get the help he needed and “turn [his] life around".

* Express has obscured the identity of this individual to protect his privacy.