Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/119

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24th May 2001

The Attorney General

-v-

Thomas Edward Le Gros

Breach of a 3 year binding over order made in the Magistrate's Court on 24th April 1999 on a guilty plea to driving without due care and attention and whilst uninsured.

Age:     20.

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused had spent the evening drinking with friends.  On his own admission, he had drunk four or five pints of lager, nine or ten double vodkas and a sambuca.  The Crown regarded the level of drunkenness to be an aggravating feature.  During the late evening at Les Folies D'Amour,  some drink was spilt on Le Gros which led to a verbal altercation.  A doorman intervened and was on the point of showing the victim to the door when Le Gros reached over the doorman's right shoulder and struck the victim with his right hand in which he was holding a glass.  The glass shattered causing serious injury to the victims left ear, almost severing part of it.  Both the victim and accused were taken outside and the accused was cooperative from that point.  Sentence was originally delayed so that a Newton hearing could take place to determine the issue whether the "glassing" had been deliberate or not.  The accused claimed that he had struck his victim  without realising that he still had a glass in his hand.  In the event, the prosecution did not proceed with the Newton hearing owing to lack of evidence to substantiate the necessary intent beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was sentenced on his version of events.

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, as the accused being 20 years of age, fell within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.  He had a record of prior convictions which was not serious and contained no offences of violence.  There was a strong probation report recommending a probation order allied to community service, and attendance at the alcohol study group.  The report referred to his family as being supportive.  The incident appeared to be out of character.  The issue of deliberate intent was resolved in the accused's favour and he had pleaded guilty to the offence prior to that.

Conclusions:

1 year probation order with 180 hours community service; attendance at alcohol study group; £1,000 compensation order to the victim, to be paid within 12 months,  or 3 months' Youth Detention in default of payment; 6 months' exclusion order from 1st to 7th category licensed premised.  Magistrate's Court binding over order to stand.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court remarked on the fact that the accused was fortunate that the prosecution had accepted his version of events.  He clearly intended to strike his victim and he did cause serious injury.  With "some hesitation" the Court felt the Crown's conclusions to amount to sufficient punishment but with some small variation.  The Court imposed a probation order of one year subject to the usual conditions and subject to the additional requirement that the accused perform 240 hours community service.  Further, the accused was ordered to pay compensation of £1,000 within 12 months or serve three months'  Youth Detention in default.  An exclusion order was made banning the accused from 1st and 7th category licensed premises for a period of six months.  The binding over order of 29th April, 1999, was discharged.

A.D. Robinson, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.P. Begg for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        In general, the Court's policy in relation to grave and criminal assaults committed in a public place is that a custodial sentence should be imposed.  Le Gros, we think you are fortunate that the Crown Advocate has accepted your statement that you were unaware of the fact that you were holding a glass on that evening and that you did not  intend to strike Scott with the glass.  You did, in any event, intend to strike him and you did cause severe injury to his ear, even if by good fortune you have not caused any permanent damage to his hearing.

2.        We have taken account of all the things said to us by your counsel and in particular we have taken account of our duty under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) Law not to impose a custodial sentence unless there is no other method of dealing with a young offender.  With some hesitation we have reached the conclusion that the package of measures proposed by the Crown Advocate, which we will vary in some respects, is sufficient punishment, having regard, in particular, to  the effect on your career that a sentence of detention would cause.

3.        We are going to place you on probation for a period of 1 year, subject to the usual conditions that you be of good behaviour during that time and that you live and work as directed by your probation officer.  You will attend such programmes as may be directed by the probation officer.  It is a further condition that you perform to the satisfaction of the community service organiser the maximum amount of community service which the Court is able to order, that is 240 hours.  We also order you, pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994, to pay compensation of  £1,000 to the Viscount for the benefit of James Paul Scott.  That compensation is to be paid within 12 months, failing which you will serve 3 months' Youth Detention.  You are also to be excluded from entering licensed premises of the 1st or 7th categories for a period of 6 months from today.  The Binding Over Order imposed on 24th April 1999 is discharged.  

Authorities

A.G.-v-Taylor (1994) JLR N.11.

A.G.-v-Mallet (2000) JLR 155.

Little -v- A.G. (3rd August, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/166]

A.G -v- Holmes, Parry (6th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/83]