Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]093A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th June 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Kenneth Charles Skinner.

FIRST INDICTMENT

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1)

 

SECOND INDICTMENT

 

1 count of:	Affray (Count 1)
1 count of:	Breach of the peace (Count 2)

 

[The Crown withdrew Count 2 on 13^th June, 2003]

Age:     33.

 

Plea:

 

Count 1 (First indictment): Guilty.  Count 1 (Second indictment): convicted 08 May 2003 at Criminal Assize.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Grave and Criminal Assault:  During the evening of Thursday 23^rd May, 2002, Skinner visited several licensed premises with a friend.  By the early hours of Friday 24^th May 2002 the two men were drinking together in Les Folies D'Amour Nightclub.  Skinner was observed to be intoxicated and was asked to leave the premises by a doorman.  He head-butted the doorman who suffered a broken nose which later required manipulation under general anaesthetic.  Skinner had claimed when interviewed by the police that the doorman had kneed him to the groin and he retaliated.  This version of events was not supported by any other witness and indeed clear eyewitness evidence bore out the fact that this was an unprovoked head-butt.  Skinner had to be restrained by doormen at the premises until the police arrived.

Affray:  At approximately 9.00pm on Sunday 28^th July, 2002 Skinner was walking down St James' Street after having been drinking heavily.  He was shouting at the top of his voice "I hate Jersey beans" and using expletives.  People in their homes were disturbed.  One local resident shouted from his window to Skinner to quieten down without success.  He went downstairs and out through his front door.  Skinner crossed the road to him and a scuffle ensued between the two men which did not result in any serious injury except to a neighbour who tried to intervene and who suffered a bad fracture to his right leg in consequence.  Skinner stopped a passing vehicle slamming his fists on the bonnet.  He continued shouting and was eventually persuaded by his mother and sister to go into their home nearby.  The police arrived and asked Skinner to come outside the premises to discuss the incident.  Skinner punched his arm through a glass pane adjacent to the door of the premises and an officer was cut by flying glass suffering a minor cut to his face.  Skinner was acquitted by an assize jury in respect of three counts of assault but was convicted unanimously of committing an affray.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The plea of guilty in respect of the assault charge was of value and the Crown gave a discount of one third in respect of that mitigating feature.  Skinner had a poor record including convictions for assaults which attracted serious custodial sentences in 1989 and 1994.  However, he had a good work record.  He had given up drinking since the turn of the year and had been in no further trouble since the commencement of the prosecution.  He asked to be made the subject of an exclusion order of unlimited duration.  He indicated that he would be leaving the Island to make a fresh start but would be returning from time to time to see his two young children.  He had separated from their mother. He referred to his problems in dealing with his having been the victim of sexual abuse in the past but did not want assistance from the probation as he had not found it of benefit when previously offered.  He accepted that he had not expressed remorse saying that he refused to be a victim.

 

Conclusions:

FIRST INDICTMENT:

 

Count 1:

12 months imprisonment

 

SECOND INDICTMENT:

 

Count 1:

6 months imprisonment consecutive.

 

The Crown adopted a starting point for sentence in relation to the offence of grave and criminal assault of two years imprisonment.  A discount of one third  (i.e 8 months) was allowed for the plea of guilty.  Taking into account the other personal mitigation available to Skinner, of which there was not a great deal, the Crown moved for the imposition of a sentence of 12 months imprisonment.  In respect of the offence of affray the Crown accepted from the outset that it was at the lower end of the scale.  A starting point for sentence of 9 months' imprisonment was adopted which was reduced following mitigation, to a recommendation of 6 months' imprisonment, making a total of 18 months imprisonment in respect of the two counts.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

FIRST INDICTMENT:

 

Count 1:

150 Hours Community Service Order

 

SECOND INDICTMENT:

 

Count 1:

50 Hours Community Service Order

 

Exclusion order from licensed premises, except 6^th category, for 12 months.

 

The Court referred to it's determination to punish crimes of violence.  The doorman had been doing his job when head-butted.  However, the fracture was a minor one and Skinner had pleaded guilty to the offence.  The charge of affray was very much at the lower end of the scale although Skinner had pleaded not guilty to that charge.  The Court stated that Skinner's problem is with drink.  It was very impressed with his attempts to turn his life around and mention was made particularly of his giving up drink, the fact that he had not committed any further offences and his work record.  References that had been produced to the Court by Skinner were described as being supportive.  The Court stated that it would give him a chance although it did so not without hesitation.  He was told that he had come within an inch of prison.   The Court approved the Crown's conclusions in terms of the appropriate length of sentence of 18 months' imprisonment but instead made an Order for community service requiring 150 hours of community service to be performed in relation to the charge of assault, and 50 hours for the  affray (to run consecutively). The 200 hours of community service in total to be performed as quickly as Skinner is able, and the Court made a 12 months exclusion order from licensed premises. (bar 6^th Category)

 

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

The Defendant on his own behalf.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You head-butted a doorman who was simply doing his duty in asking you to leave the premises when you were seriously intoxicated.  The result was a minor fracture, but clearly there are no continuing ill-effects.   Two months later you were involved in an affray but we accept that the affray is very much at the lower end of the scale.

2.        In mitigation you pleaded guilty to the assault from the start, although, of course, you did not plead guilty to the affray.  We have read carefully the background report and in particular the circumstances of your childhood.   Your problem, it seems to us, is drink: When you drink you cannot control your temper, and you commit offences as your record shows.

3.        Offences of this nature almost invariably require imprisonment. The Courts are determined that those who use violence in licensed premises or in the streets of St Helier will be punished in order to reflect society's outrage at these acts.   But we have been very impressed with your attempts to turn your life around. You served 4 months in prison on remand; you were then granted bail, but even before then you had started your business as a painter and decorator. Most importantly since being released you have committed no further offences; you have voluntarily stopped drinking completely; you have been working regularly. We believe your assertions that you are determined to change the course of your life.   We have read the references which are all very supportive.

4.        In the circumstances we have considered whether the seriousness of the offence means that we must send you back to prison.   Not without some hesitation we have concluded that we do not have to.  We are going to give you a chance, but you have come within an inch of a substantial prison sentence because that is what these offences normally require.   We think we can deal with the matter therefore by way of a Community Service Order. We think that the overall sentence moved for by the Crown was correct, in other words had we been intending to send you to prison we think a total sentence of 18 months for the offences was correct.  

5.        In the circumstances we are going to divide the sentence as follows:  On the charge of assault 150 hours Community Service, on the charge of affray 50 hours Community Service consecutive, so that means 200 in all, and we also make an Exclusion Order for 12 months.   It is up to you how quickly you complete the Community Service.  You will no doubt make arrangements with the organiser, but you must stay in Jersey until it is completed because if you fail to do so your arrest will be ordered, and even if you have gone to England you will be brought back here and I am sure you know what the punishment will be then.

6.        So we hope that you mean what you say and that you will overcome your drink problem and other problems and continue in employment and show yourself to be a useful citizen.   The Exclusion Order does not apply to 6^th category premises which are off-licences, however it applies to all other categories of licensed premises.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): p.265

A.G -v- de Freitas (20^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/86B]

Clarke -v- R (1992) 13 Cr..App.R (S) 640

A.G -v- Mc Naught (1978) JJ103

R -v- Davidson (1982) Cr.L.R.31