Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Bevis [2001] JRC 188 (31 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_188.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 188

[New search] [Help]

2001/188

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

31st August 2001

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Rumfitt and Quérée.

The Attorney General

-v-

Adrian Mark Bevis.

1 count of:

Assault.

Plea: Guilty.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 months' imprisonment, to follow consecutively sentence at present being served.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

3 months' imprisonment consecutive to sentence currently being served.

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. G. Deacon for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. Bevis, you fall to be sentenced for an assault on your version of events, which the Crown has accepted and that is that when threatened by the victim in his cell at La Moye with a dirty needle, you punched him once and then pushed him to the floor. As a result he suffered a laceration of the inside lip and an abrasion to his chin.

2. In mitigation, you have pleaded guilty. It is clear that there was provocation for this assault and we also note and support the efforts you have made since you have been in prison. As a result of this Miss Deacon has urged that any sentence imposed should be concurrent and she has referred, in particular, to the case of Ferguson (28^th August, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/170], although we have to say that the youth of the offender probably played a substantial part in that case, in that the court no doubt did not wish to add to the long sentence already being served by a young man.

3. You are also serving a long sentence and the Court is always reluctant to add to such a sentence, but the prison authorities are entitled to the support of the Court in their attempts to maintain order and discipline. In our view, where a prisoner commits an assault in prison he should normally expect that any sentence will be consecutive so that there is, in reality, an effective punishment and an effective deterrent for such behaviour. We think that the sentence in this case must, therefore, be consecutive. However, we think that the Crown has modified its view of the facts, as compared with those upon which it based its conclusions and we think the right sentence is 3 months' imprisonment. So the sentence is 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to that to which you are already serving.

Authorities

AG-v-Ferguson (28th August 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/170]

AG-v-Leitch (21st August 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/177]