Jersey Unreported Judgments

 

2000/168

pages

 

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^th August, 2000

 

Before:    M.C. St.J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats Potter and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Neil Christian Marrett

 

4 counts of                                                         false imprisonment (counts 1 - 4)

 

Age:

 

Plea:   Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                            15 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   15months' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 3:   15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 4:   15 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

                                                                                                   

Sentence & Observations of Court:  

 

Conclusions granted.

 

 

 

                                        M.St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate;

                                              Advocate R. Juste for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            It is clear to the Court that at various times during this incident all the victims were frightened and intimidated by the defendant's conduct.   This is not surprising.  To be held prisoner for 4 hours by a man wielding a knife, even when he is a son or a brother, must be an extremely distressing experience, to put it at its lowest.

 

2.            As Lord Lane, L.C.J., said in the case of R. -v- Spence & Thomas [1984] Cr. L.R. 413, offences of kidnapping and false imprisonment can vary enormously.

 

3.            Lord Lane said at page 416:

 

"It seems to this Court that, as with many crimes so with kidnapping,  (and we interpose that false imprisonment is to be regarded in similar light) there is a wide possible variation in seriousness between one instance of the crime and another.   At the top of the scale of course, come the carefully planned abductions where the victim is used as a hostage or where ransom money is demanded.   Such offences will seldom be met with less than eight years' imprisonment or thereabouts.   Where violence or firearms are used, or there are other exacerbating features such as detention of the victim over a long period of time, then the proper sentence will be very much longer than that.   At the other end of the scale are those offences which can perhaps scarcely be classed as kidnapping at all.  They very often arise as a sequel to family tiffs or lovers' disputes, and they seldom require anything more than 18 months' imprisonment, and sometimes a great deal less."

 

4.            We agree that this offence is at the lower end of the scale.

 

5.            Miss Juste, who represented the defendant, accepted that a prison sentence would normally be appropriate, but she invited the Court to impose an individualised sentence on this occasion.   Her main ground was that this was just a family dispute and she emphasised that the mother and the sister and the friend were not frightened all of the time.   She has produced to us affidavits by the three adult victims and we have read those carefully.   We accept what they all say, namely, that although at times they were intimidated and frightened, for long periods of time they were not.   Certainly in relation to the mother, she was saying that at one stage her main fear was that the victim would harm himself.   It is also clear that the family did not wish to press charges.   Secondly, Miss Juste referred to the problem which the defendant has with drink and drugs.   It is clear that he is a troubled young man and has made suicide attempts.   She urged that these problems could best be addressed outside the prison system.   Thirdly, she referred to his criminal record which is not good but, nevertheless, she emphasised that there had been nothing of this nature before and no offences of violence.   He had complied with one previous probation order and had breached another.   Finally, although she did not refer to it, the defendant is entitled to credit for the fact that he pleaded guilty, although in the circumstances it would probably have been difficult for him to do anything else with a large number of police outside.

 

6.            We have considered these matters very carefully and we have not found it easy.   We had three very helpful reports, the social enquiry report, a psychiatric report and a psychological report.   But we remind ourselves that the case of Spence envisages that  a prison sentence should normally be imposed, even where the incident relates to family or friends.

 

7.            We have concluded that to imprison people for four hours in their home with the aid of knives must normally attract a prison sentence.   We have carefully considered all the factors which Miss Juste mentioned and the reports but we do not think that we can properly deal with this case by way of a non-custodial sentence, and furthermore we think that the Crown has made adequate allowance in its length for the mitigating factors.

 

8.            Stand up please.   The sentence of the Court is that you will be sentenced to 15 month's imprisonment, concurrent, on each count.   We add the strong wish that, as the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service mentions in his report, Mr. Marrett should be offered in-prison counselling by that Service.   We very much hope that in prison you can get assistance in dealing with your problems so that when you are released you will be able to make a fresh start.

Authorities

 

R. -v- Spence & Thomas [1984] Cr. L.R. 413.