Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/34

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

9th February 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Scott Robert Harben

Steven Graham Harben

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

SCOTT ROBERT HARBEN

1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 83 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974 (count 1);
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal Assault (count 2);
1 count of;	Assault (count 3)

 

(Count 4 of the indictment was withdrawn).

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	£150 fine or 1 months imprisonment in default of payment
Count 2:	2 years Youth Detention
Count 3:	6 months Youth Detention, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence:

 

Count 1:	2 weeks Youth Detention
Count 2:	2 years Youth Detention
Count 3:	6 months Youth Detention, all concurrent.

 

 

 

 

STEVEN GRAHAM HARBEN

 

1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 83 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 ( count 5);
1 count of	Grave and criminal assault ( count 6 );

 

(Proceedings on count 5 of the indictment were stayed until further order of the Court on 25th August, 2000)

 

Plea

Guilty

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 5:            £150 fine or 1 months imprisonment in default of payment

Count 6:            18 months Youth Detention.

 

Sentence:

 

Count 5:	2 weeks Youth Detention
Count 6:	18 months Youth Detention, concurrent.

 

T.J. Le Cocq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate L.J. Kerruish for S.R. Harben

Advocate M.L. Preston for S.G. Harben.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was a disgraceful incident fuelled by alcohol.  Both defendants were disorderly at the 'Warehouse' public house with the result that scuffles ensued and they were asked to leave.

2.        Later each of them assaulted a Police Officer.  Scott Harben punched PC Vallois on the face then pushed WPC Forde to the ground and kicked her twice, once to the lower back and once near the shoulder.  Steven Harben kicked PC Vallois some two to three times near the shoulder whilst PC Vallois was on the ground.

3.        Police officers have a difficult and responsible task.  They have to uphold law and order for the benefit of the community as a whole and they are entitled to the protection of the Courts.  Save in exceptional circumstances anyone who commits a grave and criminal assault on a police officer in the execution of his or her duty can expect a prison sentence.

4.        Both defence counsel in this case have urged the Court to impose a non-custodial sentence.  We have considered those submissions very carefully.  In addition we have considered Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 which applies to Steven Harben because he is aged 20.  However, we have concluded that the offending was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

5.        We have considered the mitigation put forward by both counsel.  They referred to the guilty pleas, although this was late in Scott Harben's case.  They have emphasised that these offences were out of character: Scott has only one previous conviction of any relevance and Steven is to be treated as a young man of previous good character.  That is supported by the references which have been handed up and they show that there is a good side to both of these defendants.  The social enquiry report has highlighted their difficult background and we have been referred to recent tragic events in the Harben family.  Furthermore, counsel have emphasised that this offence was not premeditated.  It occurred on the spur of the moment, fuelled by alcohol, and the kicks were to the body but not to the head of the two officers.

6.        Despite all these matters we had, at one stage, considered increasing the conclusions.  To kick a police officer when he or she is on the ground is a very serious matter.  Nevertheless we have been impressed by the submissions made by both counsel and, in the circumstances, we have concluded that the right course is to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

7.        The sentence, therefore, is as follows.  In Scott Harben's case, you are sentenced to two weeks' youth detention on count 1; 2 years' youth detention on count 2; and six months' youth detention on count 3; all of these to be concurrent making a total of two years' youth detention.  In Steven Harben's case, you are sentenced to two weeks' youth detention on count 5; and 18 months' youth detention on count 6, to run concurrently, making a total of 18 months' youth detention.  The Court must warn you that you may be subject to a period of supervision on your release.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974.

Licensing (No. 5) (Jersey) Regulations, 1992.

A.G.-v- Prior, Reed, and McLean (25th November, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

R. -v- Moore (1992) 14 Cr.App.R.(S) 273.

Mallet -v- A.G. (14th July, 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA.

A.G. -v- Botting and Kelly (22nd November, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

Kelly -v- A.G. (23rd January, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA.

Attorney General's Reference No. 35 of 1995 (R. -v- Hartley) [1996] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 413.

A.G. -v- McLean and Lochhead (18th March, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Aubin (27th July, 1989) Jersey Unreported..