Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC059

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

28^th March 2003

The Attorney General

-v-

Zoe Tia Du Feu

Age:     27.

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

During the afternoon of 21^st June, 2002, Miss X, who was then 15 years of age, met up with some relatives, who were on holiday in the Island, and helped herself to three and a half bottles of Smirnoff Ice, an "alchopop" of average alcoholic strength, from her relatives' personal supply.  At the end of the afternoon her father dropped her off near Le Squez housing estate, in the Parish of St Clement, and she made her way to a friend's house.  During the course of a conversation with a friend, Miss X indicated to him that she was going to smash the windows at the home address of the Defendant.  Taking with her a wooden chair leg, she walked the short distance to the Defendant's address, picking up an empty glass bottle en route.  When she arrived, she threw the bottle at the wall of the house, causing the Defendant, who was concerned for the safety of her two young children inside the house, to come outside.  After a short verbal exchange, a fight ensued between the two, during which the Defendant punched, slapped and bit Miss X.  She then got on top of Miss X and used the chair leg to cut into her neck, causing Miss X to cough and gag.  During the course of the fight, the Defendant was heard to shout out, "I want to kill her; I'm going to break your neck", "You ran off with my man" and "Nobody messes with me".  Miss X was unable to free herself and it took four women to free her from the Defendant.

Details of Mitigation:

There was a history of tension between Miss X and the Defendant, as the former had started a relationship with the father of the youngest two of the Defendant's four children, notwithstanding that the relationship was not finalised.  Great provocation, the intoxication of Miss X and the fact that she admitted instigating the confrontation, the Defendant's guilty plea and the need for the Defendant to look after her four young children were all cited as mitigating factors.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

240 hours' Community Service Order.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

90 hours' Community Service Order.  In view of the Court's disdain towards the father of Miss X for dropping her off at the estate in a drunken condition, but for which the serious assault could have been avoided, the Court lifted the reporting restrictions to allow the press to name him.

C.M.M.Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        We wish to deal first with the events leading up to this grave and criminal assault.  We are told by the Crown Advocate that some 20 minutes before the assault took place, the fifteen year old victim was left alone by her father in an intoxicated condition in a public place. This was on the face of it a grossly irresponsible act by a parent.

2.        If she had not been left to her own devices in this drunken condition it seems to us unlikely that the girl would have armed herself with a chair leg and a bottle, and set out to cause trouble for the defendant.  In short, if the girl had not been left in that way the offence would probably not have taken place at all.  Article 100 (a) of the Children (Amendment No 4) Jersey Law 1974 provides for reporting restrictions in respect of children under the age of 18, but gives the Court a discretion to dispense with this restriction in the public interest to the extent that the Court thinks fit.  We lift the restriction to the extent of authorising publication of the name of the father of the victim.

3.        Miss Du Feu we accept that you were subjected to very serious provocation.  That does not, however, excuse attacking this girl in the way that you did; you could easily have caused her permanent injury, or worse.  But for all the mitigation available to you, you would undoubtedly have been sent to prison for a substantial time.

4.        Having said that, we accept that the offence was entirely out of character.  We have read the reports and we accept that you are a very good and caring mother to your children.  Performing community service in addition to looking after 4 small children will be very difficult for you, but I am sure you understand that we have to punish you for the offence that you have admitted.

5.        We are going to reduce the conclusions.  We will order you to perform 90 hours' Community Service, and we state that the alternative to that sentence is a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Mallet -v- A.G. (2000) JLR 256,