Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/41

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th February 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Rui Miguel Jardim de Jesus

 

 

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (count 1);
1 counts of:	Having an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to Article 43(1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 2000 (count 2).

 

 

Age:     21.

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant went to Follies D'Amour Nightclub having consumed four or five pints of lager.  He met the victim with whom he had worked on a building site, in the company of his friend, Carlos.  The victim had borrowed two C.Ds from the defendant which the defendant asked to be returned.  Words were exchanged and then an argument ensued.  The victim said he was punched first and this was supported by independent witnesses.  The accused claimed he was punched first but admitted that he lunged at the victim with a knife and stabbed him in the lower left abdomen.  The defendant then threw away the knife - a 6cm steel kitchen knife - and he was then held by Carlos, pending the arrival of security staff and subsequently the police.  The victim suffered a 2cm deep stab wound which required external suturing but no further surgery.  He was detained three days in hospital.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The victim was not a stranger to the defendant and there was "some history".  Defendant acted on his own, in the heat of the moment, and alcohol was involved.  Some degree of provocation.  Not premeditated in the sense he did not hunt down his victim.  No intention to cause really serious harm.  Very co-operative, did not conceal the knife or his guilt.  Admissions made at very early stage; guilty on indictment.  One public order offence but never been in prison before.  Letter to the Court handed up.  21 years old with girl friend and baby daughter born in Jersey six months earlier.  Had been considering returning to Madeira prior to the incident because of lack of accommodation.

 

Previous Convictions:

Resisting police arrest and refusing to obey police - bound over for six months.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment;
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Deportation recommended after sentence served.  Article 6 (2) Notice had been served on Defendant on 4^th January, 2002.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment;
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Deportation recommended.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

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

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Carrying a knife in a public place for the purpose of self protection is not an acceptable practice.  It is an aggravating feature of this case, particularly as the accused was prepared to use the knife, in the heat of the moment, as an instrument of aggression.  Having said that we accept the submissions of defence counsel that there was no intention to cause really serious harm.  It appears from the medical evidence to have been more of a jab than a stab and it was certainly not a sustained attack.  We accept also that there may have been some provocation by the victim.

2.        De Jesus is a young man with only one previous conviction.  He has shown remorse; was co-operative with the police; accepted responsibility for his actions; and has pleaded guilty at the earliest possible stage.  He is entitled to credit for all these mitigating factors.  We have reached the conclusion that the appropriate sentence on count 1 is a sentence of three years' imprisonment.  De Jesus, you are accordingly sentenced, on count 1, to three years' imprisonment and on count 2, to two months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of three years' imprisonment.

3.        We turn now to the question of deportation.  In accordance with standard practice we have asked ourselves two questions.  First, is it in the interests of the community that de Jesus should be deported from the Island at the conclusion of his sentence.  Secondly, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, would deportation be a disproportionate penalty, having regard to the effect upon other innocent parties who are not before the Court.

4.        Dealing with the first question, de Jesus arrived in Jersey about two years ago.  He was convicted on 20^th July, 2000, shortly after his arrival in the Island of resisting the police and of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.  For these offences he was bound over to keep the peace for a period of six months.  He has now been convicted of this serious offence of grave and criminal assault involving the use of a knife for which he has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment.  We have no hesitation in concluding that it is in the interests of the community that de Jesus should be deported from Jersey.

5.        We turn to the second question.  De Jesus has an intimate relationship with a young woman who is also of Portuguese nationality and who, like de Jesus, comes from Madeira.  They have a baby daughter who was born in Jersey some six months' ago.  Because of difficulties in finding suitable accommodation de Jesus and his partner have been living apart since the birth of the child and this has caused tensions in their relationship.  Even before the commission of this offence they were contemplating returning to Madeira.  De Jesus' parents and a number of his siblings are all living in Portugal, although one brother is, apparently, living in Jersey.  It seems clear to us that no real hardship would be caused to de Jesus or to members of his family if he were required to leave Jersey and to return to Portugal.  We accordingly recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that de Jesus be deported from Jersey at the conclusion of his sentence.

 

Authorities

Le Monnier-v-AG [2000] JLR 396.

Mallet-v-AG [2000] JLR 256.