Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/138

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th June 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

James Porteous

 

 

1 count of:	grave and criminal assault.
1 count of:	assault.

 

 

Age:     21

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

At the Weighbridge in the early hours of Saturday 7^th April, 2001, the defendant (who had consumed a large quantity of alcohol) was observed on CCTV to walk directly towards the victim (who was standing and bending forward talking to two girls who were lying on the ground) and then kick the victim once in the face.  As a result of the kick, the victim staggered and fell to the ground whereupon the defendant launched a vicious and sustained attack involving at least five kicks (three to the head) and eight punches to the head.  At no point did the victim retaliate.  An innocent on-looker was also punched as he tried to retrain the defendant.  In interview defendant claimed that a group of five men had attacked him by kicking and punching him as he left the Warehouse and that he was acting in self defence in attacking the victim.  During interview he admitted that he wanted to cause sufficient harm to ensure that the victim remained on the ground.  After watching the CCTV coverage (and by his plea before the Royal Court on 15^th June 2001), the defendant accepted that he had not acted out of self-defence, agreed that the attack was more extensive than he had described during the course of his question and answer interview and showed remorse.  For the purposes of sentencing the prosecution assumed that the victim had been attacked earlier in the evening and had received relatively minor injuries (a bruise to the forehead and an abrasion to one of his elbows) and that the defendant mistakenly thought that the victim was involved in that incident. 

Aggravating features included: (1) defendant was under influence of alcohol; (2) defendant is clearly seen to walk up to victim and assault him, no evidence of heated moment; (3) sustained act of violence involving approximately 5 kicks (at least 3 to the head) and 8 punches to head; (4) attack continued despite defendant being restrained by onlookers; (5) attack concluded with final kick whilst victim was on the floor, following a barrage of punches in the face; (6) the defendant admitted that he intended to cause his victim harm.      

 

Details of Mitigation:

(1) Guilty plea (although options limited in view of strength of evidence against him); (2) previous good character (no previous convictions for violence); (3) comparative youth at 21; (4) assault was not pre-meditated; (5) defendant showed remorse/apologetic in interview; (6) despite severity of attack, no lasting injuries to victim and injuries relatively minor; (7) Element of provocation (for sentencing purposes the prosecution accepts that there was a previous incident in which the defendant was assaulted and thought that Le Poidevin was involved).    

 

Previous Convictions:

3 previous convictions for breach of the peace (do not appear to be violence related).

 

Conclusions:

Crown adopts a starting point of 4 years and in light of mitigation moves for:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

 

1 months' sentence for Count 2 takes into account totality principle.  Crown seeks a 6 month exclusion order from the defendant's release date in respect of premises holding 1^st or 7^th Category licenses.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court had the opportunity to view the short CCTV coverage in Chambers in the presence of the defendant and agreed with the Crown's description of the incident as a very vicious assault involving repeated kicking and punching.  Despite many mitigating features (including the fact that the defendant had acted largely out of character) Court considered custodial sentence required and Court stated that it is determined that violent behaviour should be punished to bring home the fact that it is not to be tolerated in the streets of St. Helier. 

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Exclusion order from 1st and 7th category licensed premises for 6 months from date of release.

 

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was a vicious assault, involving repeated kicking and punching of the victim and a punch to a passer-by who simply tried to pull the defendant away.

2.        Mr. Chapman has put forward many matters of mitigation on the defendant's behalf and we accept that what he did was largely out of character.  It is clear that the defendant believed that his victim had been involved in an assault on him earlier but we regard that as being little excuse because clearly some time had passed and there was plenty of time for the defendant to have cooled down.

3.        Porteous, you have no previous convictions for assault; and you have pleaded guilty, although the cctv evidence against you was overwhelming.  We accept that you are remorseful; you have a good work record; you are young, and we have read carefully the many references which have been supplied which show that you have much promise.

4.        The Court is determined that violent behaviour should be punished in order to bring home to people that such conduct will not be tolerated; there is far too much of it in St. Helier.  We have given consideration as to whether the sentence of 18 months moved for by the Crown for the main assault is sufficient.  We think it is quite generous.  Nevertheless we do not propose to increase it.  Furthermore, we think that the assault on the passer-by is part and parcel of the same offence and is not in the same category as subsequent assaults on police officers.

5.        The sentence of the Court is as follows: on count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  We make an exclusion order of 6 months from licensed premises of 1^st and 7^th categories from the date of your release.  We very much hope that you will put all this behind you when you are released, pick up your life again, and move forward in a more promising way.

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities

Mallet-v-A.G. (14^th July, 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2000/134].

A.G.-v-Brown (25^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/35].