Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/34

2 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th February, 2000

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

                                                      Jurats Rumfitt, and Georgelin.

The Attorney General

-v-

William McDonald Manson;

Ruth Lara Mckenzie.

WILLIAM MCDONALD MANSON:

1 count of:  grave and criminal assault  ( count 1, on which count he was acquitted by a Jury on 25^th January, 2000);

1 count of:  conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace ( count 2);

RUTH LARA MACKENZIE:

1 count of:  being drunk and disorderly ( count 3);

1 count of:  obstructing a police officer (count 4);

1 count of:  resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (count 5).

Conclusions:  2 years' binding over order for both accused.

Sentence & Observations of Court:      Conclusions granted.,

                                              P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate

                                       Advocate G. S. Robinson for W.M. Manson.

                                        Advocate D.C. Sowden for R.L. Mackenzie.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:  This was a most unseemly incident, although the Court accepts that you do not agree that it was as bad as the Crown said, and we are willing to proceed on that basis.  Nevertheless, it must have been very worrying for those who were in the vicinity, and it would normally attract either a financial penalty or, in the case of resisting or obstructing the police,  possibly even a short custodial sentence.  

However, there is considerable mitigation on both of your parts,  about which we have heard.  Mr Manson,  although you have a previous record, you have kept out of trouble ever since you came to Jersey, and Miss Mackenzie you have no previous convictions whatsoever.

We have had particular regard to what is said in the background report, and in particular to recent events which are described in that report.  We can only commend you for the stance you are taking in relation to certain problems which have arisen.

In the light of that strong mitigation we are, therefore,  adopting the conclusions of the Crown.  You are both bound over for two years to be of good behaviour.  That means that you will hear nothing further about this provided you keep out of trouble for two years.  If, on the other hand, you commit any further offence within that two year period, then you can be brought back to this Court and punished for the present offences.

No Authorities