2000/107
3 pages
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
16th June, 2000
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and
Jurats Quérée and Allo
The Attorney General
-v-
David John Powell
1 count of: grave and criminal assault (count 1);
1 count of: possessing an offensive weapon (count 2);
1 count of: being drunk and disorderly (count 3).
Age: 36.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offences:
Whilst under the influence of alcohol attended at Police Headquarters and became abusive. On being escorted from the premises drew a lock knife on a police officer. Colleagues warned the officer of impending attack and he was able to restrain and disarm the defendant. Charge of being drunk and disorderly related to separate incident where he became abusive towards officers in the Royal Square when being asked to pick up a dustbin which he had knocked over.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea. Had an admitted dependence on alcohol, consuming, on average, 100 pints of lager a week. Unwilling to address his drink problem or accept assistance from probation service.
Previous Convictions:
Lengthy record including four offences of resisting or refusing to obey the police. Six offences of disorderly or drunken behaviour.
Conclusions: count 1: 18 months' imprisonment;
count 2: 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent;
count 3: 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive;
TOTAL: 21 months' imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of the Court:
count 1: 18 months' imprisonment;
count 2: 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent;
count 3: 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent;
TOTAL: 18 months' imprisonment.
3 months' exclusion order from all licensed premises for 3 months from date of release.
Threatening to strike police officer very serious offence and must be severely punished.
A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate Mrs. J. Grace for the accused.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. To threaten to strike a police officer with a knife is a very serious offence and must be severely punished. The fact that Powell was drunk is no defence and no excuse and is indeed an aggravating factor in that his intoxication made him, on that occasion, a much more dangerous person. We think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate on counts 1 and 2 are entirely correct.
2. So far as the offence in the Royal Square is concerned, we accept the submissions of defence counsel and we will impose a concurrent sentence.
3. Powell, we have no doubt that you must control your drinking if you are to get your life in order and if you are not to be at risk of committing even more serious offences. We are going to try to help you in that respect by imposing an order under the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law, 1998, which will prohibit you from entering any licensed premises for a period of 3 months to begin on the date on which you are released from prison. We hope that you will take advantage of that prohibition to conduct your life differently once you are again at liberty.
4. On count 1, you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent; on count 3, you are sentenced to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment. We impose an Exclusion Order under the 1998 Law for a period of 3 months to begin on the date on which you are released from prison. We further order the forfeiture of the knife.
Authorities
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.90-91; 94-95.
Ibid: 1995-1996 Noter Up: p.34.
Ibid: 1996-1997 Noter Up: pp.45-46.
AG -v- Gibaut (31st May, 1985) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Whiteford (2nd July, 1993) Jersey Unreported.
AG -v- Ashford (12th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.