Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC165

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^h September 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Philip Edward Le Blancq

 

 

1 count of:	grave and criminal assault (count 1)
1 count of:	demanding money with menaces (count 2)

 

 

Age:     26.

 

Plea:    Accused pleaded Not Guilty on ground of insanity at time acts were committed.  This special

defence rejected by trial jury.

 

Details of Offence:

During the early hours the accused arrived at the home of his father and stepmother.  He removed two iron bars from his father's workbench in the barn and entered the premises through an open window.  He burst into the room in which his father and stepmother were sleeping and proceeded violently to threaten and menace his father with the iron bars.  His father received several blows from the iron bars causing minor injuries to his stomach, elbow and hand.

The accused accompanied his father downstairs and on the way caused damage to pictures, a vase and a lamp.  At the bottom of the stairs the accused demanded a cheque for £500,000.  He went with his father to his father's study where a cheque in this sum was written out.

The five year old niece of the accused was in the house at the time of the attack and (along with the other occupants) was frightened by the incident.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Not guilty plea but extensive admissions made by the accused acknowledged as having truncated the length of the trial.  Although the special insanity defence had failed it was clear the accused had a continuing mental illness (schizo-affective disorder) requiring specialist psychiatric treatment.  Whilst well the accused described "guilt and remorse" for his actions.  On remand awaiting trial and thereafter sentence had been in the care of Belcroute Ward and had made progress in terms of his mental health. 

 

Previous Convictions:

Possessing utensils/needles/syringe, possessing psilocin and possessing cannabis resin (1996) for which he was fined.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment concurrent

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The offence had been a terrifying experience for the adults and small child involved.  But for special circumstances a substantial prison sentence would have been inevitable.

Whilst the jury had rejected the insanity defence the accused was and had been mentally ill and needed treatment.  It was a matter of grave concern that the Courts had no option to impose a hospital order without limit as to time.  The gap in the current Jersey legislation meant that the Court had no power to make the order which all experts agreed was the order which should be made.  As long ago as 1989 the Court of Appeal had indicated an amendment to Jersey's Mental Health legislation was required.  The Court hoped that the Health and Social Services Committee would take urgent action to rectify the position.  In the meantime the Court was faced with two inadequate disposals - prison (with a risk that  the accused's mental condition might deteriorate) and a probation order which could be imposed for only up to three years.  On balance the Court took the second option.

Three years' probation on condition accused of good behaviour, lives and works as directed co-operates fully with any care/treatment recommended by the Consultant Psychiatrist and undergoes random urine testing from time to time.

 

 

A.J. Belhomme, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P.J. Le Cornu for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has been convicted of two serious offences: grave and criminal assault and demanding money with menaces.  He broke into his father's house and confronted his father and step mother in their bedroom in the middle of the night threatening his father with two iron bars that he was holding.  It must have been a terrifying experience for those adults but also for a small child who was in the house and heard what was going on.  But for the special circumstances of this case we think that a substantial prison sentence would have been inevitable. 

2.        The defendant pleaded not guilty on the ground that he was insane at the time the offences were committed.  The jury rejected that defence finding that the defendant was responsible in law for his actions.  It is nonetheless the case that the defendant is and was mentally ill and needs treatment.  It is a matter of grave concern that this Court has no power, as Courts in England have had since 1983, or earlier, to make a hospital order without limit of time so that an offender who is mentally ill and potentially dangerous either to himself or to others can be compelled to receive psychiatric treatment. 

3.        The result of this gap in our legislation is that today we have no power to make the kind of order which all the experts agree is the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  As long ago as 1989 the Court of Appeal drew attention to this defect and this Court has said the same thing on occasions subsequently.  We express the hope that the Health and Social Services Committee will take urgent action to amend the 1969 law, so as to confer this necessary power on the Royal Court.

4.        In the meantime, we are left with a choice between two inadequate disposals. We can sentence Le Blanq to imprisonment but we are told that he may not receive treatment for some time and we are warned that his mental health might deteriorate dramatically in prison.  Alternatively we can impose a probation order with a condition of psychiatric treatment but that order can last for only three years.  On balance we think that the second option is the appropriate disposal here. 

5.        Le Blancq, you have made a great deal of progress in the last 10 months and the Court does not want to see you go backwards.  We are going to impose a probation order and I now impose it formally.  You are placed on probation on the two counts of which you have been convicted, subject to the usual conditions that you be of good behaviour during that time, that you live and work as directed by your probation officer.  And subject to these further specific conditions which I want you to study carefully: that you co-operate fully with any care or treatment directed by the Consultant Psychiatrist and that you submit to random urine testing from time to time as you may be required to do.

6.        As you heard me say, the order which the Court can make will last for only three years, but the Court hopes that you will understand that those who are working to help you to get over your difficulties will continue to be available to help you and that you will after the probation order has expired continue to do whatever needs to be done to make sure that you remain in good health.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n); paragraphs 711-731; 793-800.

Attorney General -v- Ferguson and another (8^th August, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- Da Silva and Another (9^th March, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/60]

McCool -v- Attorney General (20^th February, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- Marquer: (1999) JLT N18.

Attorney General -v- Welsh and another (25^th February, 1993) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- McGregor and others (4^th August, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- Ferguson and another (8^th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- Skinner and another (12^th December, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

Archbold (2003 Edition) - paragraphs 5 - 563 to 587 inclusive.

Attorney General -v- O'Driscoll (18^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/29A].

Attorney General -v- Adams (3^rd March, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/41].