Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC046

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th March, 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Adrian Houiellebecq

 

 

3 counts of:	Cruelty to a child under 16, contrary to Article 9 (1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 (counts 1, 2, 3).
2 counts of:	Assault (counts 4, 5)

 

Breach of a 12 months' Probation Order made in the Magistrate's court on 12 March, 2002, on guilty plea to 1 count of making obscene/indecent telephone calls.

Age:     19.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 -3: The defendant and his partner lived together with their three month old baby "K".  Baby K was looked after from time to time by a child minder.  Baby K was brought to the baby minder with petechial haemorrhages (small red pin-prick like bruises) above and below his eyes, a bruise on his left and right cheek and a bruise on his right leg.  The child minder took Baby K to the Hospital and was met by officers from the Child Protection Unit, and an enquiry was commenced.  During the course of medical examinations it was discovered that Baby K had a healing facture of his right femur, the injury having been suffered approximately four to six weeks earlier.  The petechial haemorrhages were suggestive of compression of the neck or chest, causing an acute rise in venous pressure and rupture of the thin walled peripheral small veins.  When relevant persons were interviewed, two witnesses said they had previously seen a bruise like a hand mark on Baby K's ribs.  Courts 4 - 5: The defendant and his partner had a volatile relationship.  On one occasion, he struck her across the left side of her face with his fist three times and on a subsequent occasion, punched her on the chin with his fist, causing her lip to bleed.

 

Details of Mitigation:

After initially failing to offer an explanation of Baby K's injuries, defendant was co-operative at interview and conceded that he was "probably" responsible for Baby K's injuries by dint of rough handling.  The fracture of the femur was explained by the defendant as possibly having been caused by his making "cycling motions" with the infant's legs.  Defendant claimed he did not intend any injury and prosecution had not alleged wilful assault.  The Social Enquiry Report and psychological report revealed an immature teenager with little empathy or insight.  He expressed remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

Breach of the peace; possession of an offensive weapon; making obscene telephone calls; breach of probation.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	9 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	12 months' youth detention.
Count 3:	12 months' youth detention.
Count 4:	3 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	3 months' youth detention.

 

All concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted; probation order discharged.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. Benest for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

BAILIFF:

1.        Ill treating small children, particularly those as young as the victim in this case, is a very serious offence.  The cruelty involved in count 2 was especially extreme and involved the fracture of the child's femur.  Medical opinion was that the fracture of the shaft was a complete break of the bone  and would have required great force well outside that used in the normal handling of a young child.  Unhappily this violence towards his 3 months' old son was not an isolated occurrence.

2.        It is a matter of concern that the defendant minimises his responsibility for this cruelty by attributing it to external factors such as his immaturity and inexperience.  The fact of the matter is that Houiellebecq has not yet learned to control his violent reactions to stressful situations.  In short he reacts to pressure by bullying his family.  We understand, therefore, why the Probation Officer should have recommended a probation order, subject to conditions that would require the defendant to address these characteristics.  If we had power to impose a probation order in addition to a prison sentence we would probably have done so, but we do not have this power.  Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 obliges the Court not to pass a sentence of youth detention, unless it considers that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, because it appears to the Court inter alia that the offence or the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  These offences in relation to the child are too serious to warrant a non-custodial sentence in the judgment of this Court. 

3.        In mitigation we have taken into account the youth and immaturity of the defendant.  We also take into account his guilty plea, which demonstrates some measure of remorse for the offences that he has committed.  We think that these factors are properly reflected in the conclusions of the Crown Advocate. We accordingly sentence you on count 1, to 9 months youth detention; on count 2, to 12 months youth detention; count 3, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 4, to 3 months' youth detention; on count 5, to 3 months' youth detention, all those sentences to run concurrently.  I have to tell you that when you are released from the young offenders centre you will be required to be supervised by a probation or other officer.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Mallet (20^th March, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Mourant (7^th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp.801-16.

Dawson (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S) 338.

Watson (1992) 13 Cr.App. R. (S) 319.

Cavanagh (1994) Cr.App. R. (S) 589.