Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/83

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th April 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Nathan Grant Holmes

Shona Parry

 

Nathan Grant Holmes

 

1 count of grave and criminal assault.

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Holmes was in the Quids Inn nightclub when an argument broke out between himself and another man.  Although Holmes had been drinking the other person instigated the attack by headbutting Holmes who instinctively hit out at him whilst holding a glass.  The prosecution accepted the defence version of an inadvertent use of the glass which could not be described as a "glassing".  The glass shattered on the victim's head, and, although it was fortunate that no serious injury was caused, Parry, who was sitting nearby, was showered with glass.  Parry was not actually with Holmes on this occasion.  Holmes was ejected from the premises and Parry saw him outside on the ground having been placed there by the doorman.  She ran up to him and kicked him in the head causing a minor injury which required two sutures.  Parry was heavily intoxicated at the time and the fact that she had had time to calm down was considered an aggravating factor.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Holmes came from a stable family background had a good work record and a favourable reference had been produced from Dr. Faiz .  He had several minor convictions which were of no relevance.  The social enquiry report recommended unsupervised probation and community service.  Holmes had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and defence counsel argued for a reduction in the sentence owing to a sense of injustice felt by him that his victim had not been prosecuted in respect of the headbutt.

 

 

Conclusions:

1 year probation order; 120 hours community service.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Under ordinary circumstances a case of "glassing" would attract a substantial sentence of imprisonment.  However, the Court accepted that the punch was thrown incidentally whilst holding a glass, causing only minor injury.  The guilty plea was noted together with the lack of relevant previous convictions.  The offence was considered to be out of character for the accused and there was strong mitigation.  The Court was also concerned at the unexplained delay between the commission of the offence in May and the charging in November, 2000.  The conclusions of the Crown would be adopted but because of the delay the period of community service was reduced from 120 hours to 90.

 

Shona Parry

 

1 count of grave and criminal assault.

 

Age:    24.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:    see Holmes, above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Parry had been cut by flying glass and was in a state of shock.  She had pleaded guilty, although at a later stage than Holmes.  There had been only one kick aimed generally at the upper body and not specifically the head, which had caused minor injury.  She regretted the incident which had been committed on the spur of the moment.  The background report recommended probation with the condition that she attend the alcohol study group.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  Parry had been showered with glass and the Court noted that she had delivered just the one kick which had not been aimed intentionally at the victim's head.  She had pleaded guilty and a favourable background report was produced to the Court.  She had one previous conviction for grave and criminal assault committed in similar circumstances indicating that she lacked self-control and became violent whilst under the influence of alcohol.  Parry would undoubtedly have received a custodial sentence and it was solely due to the delay in processing this case that had saved her.  The conclusions were granted and Parry was placed on supervised probation for one year with the condition that she carry out 120 hours community service and attend the alcohol and study group as directed.

 

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

Advocate R.J.F. Pirie for N.G. Holmes;

Advocate H. Boléat for S. Parry.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.         Holmes, normally a 'glassing' will attract a substantial prison sentence.  Such assaults are potentially very dangerous.  However, in this case, the prosecution accept that during a verbal and then physical altercation in a public house with the victim you were head butted in the face by the victim with considerable force.  You reacted instinctively by hitting the victim with your right hand in which you were holding a glass.  Although it broke, fortuitously the victim sustained only superficial cuts.

 

2.         In mitigation it has been said that this was not a conventional glassing; this was in effect a punch where you happened to have a glass in your hand.  It has also been said that you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that goes very much to your credit.  You have no previous convictions for violence and the social enquiry report together with the references we have read show that you have a good work record and that this is wholly out of character.  In general there is very strong mitigation.

 

3.         There is an additional factor which is in your favour in this case and that is the question of delay.  You were interviewed on 9^th March.  You gave a full statement of your part in this incident at that time and yet for reasons which are wholly unexplained you were not charged until 1^st November, some 6 months later.  We have asked the Crown Advocate to establish the reasons for this delay and to report back to us.

 

4.         In the circumstances we are willing to go along with the Crown's conclusions because we regard this as exceptional in all the circumstances and indeed to reduce them slightly, particularly because of the delay factor.  Holmes, the sentence imposed by the Court is that you will be subject to an unsupervised probation order for one year subject to a condition that you undertake 90 hours community service.

 

5.         Miss Parry, you were showered with glass from the assault involving Mr Holmes. Shortly afterwards when you were still clearly in a distressed state you saw the victim on the ground outside where he had apparently been placed by the doorman, after being evicted and you kicked him once in the head, although we accept that you did not aim for the head, you were just aiming for him generally.  It was an act of instinctive retaliation.

 

6.         You also have pleaded guilty, you have the support of a strong social enquiry report and the other matters to which we have been referred.  However, this is not your first offence for grave and criminal assault.  You have already been before the Court for one such offence and it is clear to us that you have a problem in controlling yourself when you are under the influence of alcohol.  Nevertheless the delay also goes to your benefit and were it not for that factor the Court might well have felt that it had to impose a prison sentence for a second offence of grave and criminal assault.

 

7.         In all the circumstances we are going to grant the conclusions moved for by the Crown which are that you are placed on a supervised probation order for 12 months with a condition that you undertake 120 hours community service.  The increased number of hours compared with your co-accused is to reflect the fact that you have a previous conviction.  It will be a condition of the probation order that you attend the alcohol study group as directed.

 

Authorities

 

A.G. -v- Gilmour (14^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Parry & Parry (6^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported.