Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/225

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th November, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and

Jurats de Veulle and Bullen

 

Magistrate's Court Appeal

 

Kathryn Mary Mallet

-v-

The Attorney General

 

 

Appeal against a total sentence of four weeks' imprisonment, passed in the Magistrate's Court on 28^th July, 2000, following guilty pleas to:

 

1 count of:   being drunk and disorderly, on which count a sentence of four days' imprisonment was passed;

 

1 count of:   assaulting police, in the execution of their duty, on which count a sentence of three weeks' imprisonment was passed;

 

1 count of:   being disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 83 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974, on which count a sentence of four days' imprisonment was passed;

 

1 count of resisting the police in the execution of their duty, on which count a sentence of one week's imprisonment was passed.

 

The sentence of one week's imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence of four days' imprisonment, but to follow consecutively sentence of three weeks' imprisonment.

 

Appeal dismissed.

 

 

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the appellant.

Advocate C. Yates on behalf of the Attorney General.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            This appellant pleaded guilty to offences involving public disorder and to two charges of assault on police officers and was sentenced to a total of four weeks' imprisonment by the Magistrate.

 

2.            There were two separate incidents.  On the first occasion, in April, 2000, the appellant was drunk and disorderly on 'La Route du Fort' when she was arrested and taken to Police Headquarters.  There she was violent and punched WPC Santos Costa on side of the head, near the temple, causing slight bruising and reddening.

 

3.            The second incident occurred in June when the appellant was extremely disorderly and violent in licensed premises.  She resisted two police constables in the execution of their duty and attempted to spit saliva at one of them.  She continued to react violently until she arrived at Police Headquarters.

 

4.            The appellant has a record of previous convictions which include seven convictions on four different occasions for assaults on the police and of resisting the authority of the police or resisting arrest.  On each of these occasions she has received non-custodial penalties.

 

5.            The grounds of appeal put before us by Mrs Pearmain were that the sentences were either wrong in principle, having regard to the background of the appellant, or manifestly excessive.  Two particular points were raised in amplification of those grounds.  First it was said that all material documents were not placed before the Magistrate.  We have studied the transcript carefully and it is possible, as is conceded by counsel for the Attorney General, that a report by the Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Blackwood, was not before the Magistrate.  On the other hand the Magistrate had before him a very full probation report and a long letter from the Drug and Alcohol Service and we do not think that there is anything in the report of Dr Blackwood which is not to be found in the other two reports.

 

6.            The second point which was put to us by Mrs Pearmain was that the appellant had no legal representation.  There is no evidence that the appellant asked for legal representation.  This was a very straightforward case and the appellant did not disagree with any of the facts laid before the Magistrate by the Centenier.  There is no immutable rule that accused persons must be represented by counsel, particularly in cases which are simple and straightforward.

 

7.            Mrs Pearmain suggested to us that the Magistrate was unaware of one traumatic factor affecting the life of the appellant which related to the suicide of a friend.  This is true, but the Magistrate did give the appellant the opportunity to say anything which she wished and she did not inform him.

 

8.            We accept that the appellant has had a very difficult background and that she has been scarred by her experiences.  Nothing, however, excuses an assault upon a police officer carrying out his or her duty.  Such assaults, unless they are very minor, should attract custodial sentences. 

9.            Police officers who have to deal on behalf of the community with drunken, aggressive, and violent offenders are entitled to know that the Courts will protect them, so far as they can, by imposing punishment upon such offenders.  This appellant has committed many such offences in the past and has been dealt with by non-custodial sentences.  It is high time she learned that if she continues to assault police officers who are only doing their job she is likely to go to prison.  The sentences imposed by the Magistrate took proper account of all the mitigating circumstances and were absolutely correct.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

10.        Mrs Pearmain, you shall have your legal aid costs.

Authorities

 

 

Pipon -v- AG (16^th August, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Ashford -v- AG (5^th December, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

 

Veloso -v- AG (18^th March, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

N.