Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/146

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16th July 2001

The Attorney General

-v-

Maurice Edward Robert  Bonhomme

Age:     30

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At about 8.15 p.m. the accused entered the Oxford Public House.  He was drunk.  The customers inside gained the impression that he was looking for trouble.  He picked a quarrel with a person he knew.  Accompanying that person was another individual who tried to calm the situation by buying the accused a drink .  Whilst this individual was doing so, the accused punched his face and then grabbed hold of him.  The accused propelled his victim across the bar area keeping hold of him all the while and pushed the victim backwards through the window pane.  The accused still did not let go of the victim who was trapped beneath the glass shards of the shattered window.  The accused had to be pulled off his victim and physically ejected from the bar.  The victim suffered deep cuts to the face and scarring measuring 4 cms.  The accused had a bad record including seven convictions for assault (including three for grave and criminal assault).  Previously, he had been dealt with by way of a fine or probation order.

Details of Mitigation:

Plea of guilty.  A hard worker with good work references (employer in Court).  In a stable relationship and treated his co-habitee's children as his own.  It appeared that the accused became violent when drunk but acted responsibly when sober.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated that this was unprovoked violence fuelled by alcohol.  This was not the first occasion of violence by the accused and he had previously been dealt with extremely leniently.  The accused was sentenced on the basis that the Crown accepted that he did not deliberately intend to put the victim through the window but he had been reckless as to that consequence.  Violence of this nature cannot be tolerated and there was no alternative other than to imprison the accused. 

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop, Esq., for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was an incident of unprovoked violence, fuelled by alcohol and it is not the first occasion on which you have committed offences of violence.  You have three previous convictions for grave and criminal assault and two for assault, which arose out of two court appearances and you have also twice been found guilty of causing a breach of the peace by fighting.  We have to say that you have been dealt with extremely leniently, having been placed on probation, or ordered to perform community service on each of those occasions.

2.        The Crown accepts that you did not intend to push the victim through the window, but you were certainly reckless about it.  Having punched your victim, you then pushed him forcefully backwards, some four to six feet, as a result of which he fell through the window.  Even then you continued to keep hold of him and you had to be pulled off by others.

3.        In mitigation we take into account that you have pleaded guilty.  We also have taken account of your good work record and we have read carefully the references, particularly from your current employer, who has also taken the trouble to come to court to show his support for you.  It is clear you have family responsibilities.  But Mr Gollop's main point was that you had to learn to control your aggression and he said that the only way to achieve this was to place you on probation with the condition that you undertake the aggression control training programme. 

4.        We have carefully considered all that he has said and he has indeed said all that could be put forward on your behalf, but in our judgement, violence of this nature cannot be tolerated and in the light of your previous record there is no alternative to a prison sentence.  Furthermore we have considered the length, but we think that the Crown's conclusions take account of all material matters, including mitigation and we therefore impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.

5.        We think there should be a compensation order in favour of your victim, but we agree with your counsel that £2,000 is too much, on the information we have.  We therefore make a compensation order of £1,000 in favour of the victim, with 3 month's imprisonment in default and a compensation order of £292.08 in favour of the brewery, with 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive.  These two sums are to be paid within a year of your release, so this should give you plenty of time to get back into work and pay off these debts, whilst at the same time re-establishing yourself.   

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994, as amended.

AG-v-Blackley (23^rd June 2000) Jersey Unreported [2000/114].