Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC086

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

23^rd May 2003

 

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John Robin Troy

 

1 count of: common assault (count 1).

 

Age:     50.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Troy had been in a relationship for approximately 3 to 4 years with the victim.  The relationship had been tempestuous and on occasions the parties had separated.  Troy had returned to the victim's accommodation in an intoxicated state.  The victim had also been drinking.  Troy subjected the victim to a considerable amount of verbal abuse before slapping her once to the face with an open hand.  Thereafter the victim alleged she was indecently assaulted but at trial the Jury acquitted Troy of this charge.  At the conclusion of the incident the victim struck Troy in the mouth with a bottle.

The Crown contended that there were a number of aggravating factors:

1.     The assault was upon a woman.

2.     The assault was committed in the victim's then home.

3.     The assault was committed when Troy was intoxicated.

4.     The assault was unprovoked.

5.     Troy at all times denied the assault.

6.     The denial went beyond a simple denial as Troy maintained at trial an invented and therefore false allegation that the injury to the victim's eye had been self-inflicted.

7.     In consequence of his not guilty plea he forced the victim to endure having to rel-live the assault at trial.

 The Crown therefore contended that in consequence a custodial sentence was the appropriate way of proceeding.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view there was little by way of mitigation.  He pleaded not guilty and had been found guilty.  He did not have the benefit of good character although it was acknowledged that his offending was somewhat dated and did not involve previous offences of violence.  He had not expressed remorse for his actions and maintained, according to the Social Enquiry Report, that he was in fact innocent of the charge.

The Defence contended that the Crown's Conclusions were excessive.  The offence had been hanging over Troy's head for approximately 14 months.  He had in fact been acquitted of the more serious offence.  He was of good character and his last convictions were dated.  Evidence had been heard at trial from his former wife that he had never previously been violent towards her during the course of their relationship.  The assault had occurred in the context of an argument where both parties had been drinking and then also in the context of their relationship.  Troy had suffered the ordeal.  He had no recollection of the assault but he himself had been assaulted and sustained far more serious injuries.

The Defence contended that the assault fell within the normal jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court and that a financial penalty was appropriate.

 

Previous Convictions:

 5 previous convictions including three driving with excess alcohol and two offences of speding.  The last offence was in 1992.

 

Conclusions:

1 month's imprisonment; Compensation Order: £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment; 6 months' Exclusion Order from all licensed premises except 6^th Category.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

£1,000.00 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment; 1 week to pay.

The Court was mindful of sentencing an individual against a background of charges which had been dismissed.  The Jury had acquitted Troy of the charge of indecent assault.  He was now to be sentenced for a single slap.  There were a number of aggravating features:

1.     The assault was upon a woman.

2.     In her own home, although it was his home.

3.     The assault was committed when accused was drunk.

4.     The assault was unprovoked.

5.     There was no remorse.

6.     There was a not guilty plea forcing the victim to re-live the incident which involved cruel psychological verbal abuse.  This drunken abuse lasted for an hour prior to the slap and therefore the slap must be put into its proper context.  The Court understood why the Crown had sought a custodial sentence but the Court did not consider it appropriate.  Troy was aged 50 and his former wife had given evidence at trial that there had been no previous problems of violence between them.  The Court took into account the delay but the delay was due in part to the actions of the accused himself.  The Court did not consider it appropriate to order a Compensation Order or an Exclusion From Licensed Premises Order.  The offence could be dealt with by way of a financial penalty.

 

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.E. Le Cornu for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court is mindful of the danger of sentencing an accused person against a background of allegations which have not been proved.  The jury acquitted this defendant of indecent assault, and we are now called upon to sentence him for an assault amounting to a single slap on the face during the course of a drunken tirade.

2.        The aggravating features are as stated by the Crown Advocate.  Firstly, the victim was a woman.  Secondly, the assault was committed in her own home and in her own bed.  Thirdly, at the time the defendant was drunk.  Fourthly, the assault was unprovoked.  There appears to be no remorse, and by his not guilty plea he compelled the victim to relive an unpleasant, and humiliating experience of cruel physiological abuse, as well as violence.  The drunken tirade, to which we have referred, endured for at least an hour.  It is in that context that the slap to the face must be put. 

3.        We understand why the Crown Advocate has moved for a custodial sentence, but we do not think that such a sentence is justified.  The defendant is 50 and has no previous convictions for this kind of offence.  His former wife testified that during the marriage she suffered no violence at his hands. 

4.        We take into account the delay in bringing the case to trial but, in part at least, this was due to a decision by the accused himself in relation to the committal proceedings.  We do not think that either a compensation order, or an exclusion order from licensed premises, is appropriate and we agree with defence counsel that the matter can be dealt with by way of a financial penalty.

5.        Troy, for the offence of which you have been convicted you will pay a fine of £1,000.00; or in default 1 month's imprisonment, and you will have 1 week to pay that fine. 

No Authorities