Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC190

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th October, 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Gary Bannon

 

 

1 count of:

Grave and Criminal Assault.

 

Age:     35.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The Defendant and the victim were drinking in the Beer House and watching football.  Bannon took exception to the victim and others cheering when his team lost.  He threatened the victim saying "I'm going to do you in".  The victim left and Bannon followed him into Don Street where he started what witnesses described as a "stand up brawl".  During the course of the fight Bannon, thinking that the victim was about to bite his nose, bit the victim's lip and chin, removing a piece of the victim's lip approximately 1 cm. long which he subsequently spat out.  The victim was treated in hospital and the wound stitched.  Although the scars had healed well by the date of sentencing the victim was left with permanent disfigurement, his mouth being visibly tighter on one side.  A numbness on the left side of his lower lip was likely to be permanent.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea in circumstances where a plea of not guilty might have been viable on the basis of self-defence.  No previous convictions for offences of violence.  Remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

One, for possession of cannabis with intent to supply for which he had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

 

Conclusions:

2 years' imprisonment

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        During the course of a scuffle, which the defendant started, he bit the victim's lip and chin so hard that part of the lip came off and he had to spit it out.  The victim required an operation because 1 cm. of his lip was missing.  The scarring has healed, but because there was a shortage in the length of the lower lip the victim will never be able to open his mouth to its full extent.  There is also numbness to the left side of his lower lip which may well be permanent.

2.        The Court has said previously that use of teeth in such a manner is tantamount to using them as a weapon.  As against that Mr. Gollop has put forward a powerful case in mitigation.  He has begun by referring to the offence itself and has emphasised that although it was the defendant who asked the victim outside and started the aggression, it was the victim who made a move which convinced two witnesses watching that he might be about to bite the defendant's nose.  It was following that, that the defendant then bit the victim's lip.

3.        He therefore emphasises that the guilty plea was of particular value in this case, because it might have been possible for the defendant to try his luck on a defence of self-defence.  He has emphasised further that this is wholly out of character, which we accept.  The defendant has no previous convictions for violence, having only one previous for possession of drugs with intent to supply.

4.        He has emphasised the defendant's remorse, which is confirmed by the Social Enquiry Report, and the fact that he has been regularly employed.  We have also seen references which speak to his employment and to his character.

5.        We carefully considered Mr Gollop's submissions that we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence, but we have concluded that we cannot.  The Court has repeatedly said that assaults of this nature can only be dealt with by a custodial sentence to emphasise that the Court will not tolerate such violence.

6.        We then had to consider the level and were referred altogether to four cases. The Attorney General's Reference No 7 of 1994 (Chadwick) (7^th July, 1994) Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England (No. 94/1736/R1) where 5 years was said to be the correct sentence after a trial.  The Attorney General's Reference No. 60 of 1996 (Hartnett) (1997) 2 Cr. App. R. (S) where it was 3 years after a trial.  The facts of those cases, of course, were individual in each case.  The first one, though, the Attorney General's Reference of 1994 was not cited to this Court in Attorney General -v- Murphy (3^rd October 1994) Jersey Unreported; [1994/199], where a sentence of two years after a trial was imposed.  We have to say that we think that sentence was on the low side, given a not guilty plea.

7.        We also considered the case of Attorney General -v- Jones [2003] JRC 015 but the Court is of the view that the circumstances of that offence were less serious, in particular, there was no ongoing injury. 

8.        One of the Defendant's real problems, we think, is alcohol.  This is referred to in the Social Enquiry Report.  He is clearly a heavy drinker although he does not, it would seem, think that he himself has a problem.  We very much hope that, as the Report says, this can be addressed in prison and the Defendant will accept that he can gain assistance in this respect.

9.        So as to the level we have again carefully considered Mr Gollop's persuasive submissions, but this was a vicious assault.  The Court has repeatedly said, it will not accept such conduct and in the circumstances we think that the Crown's conclusions are correct. 

10.      The sentence is one of 2 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

Mallet -v- Attorney General [2000] JLR 256.

Attorney General -v- Jones [2003] JRC 015.

Attorney General -v- Murphy (3^rd October 1994) Jersey Unreported; [1994/199].

Attorney General's Reference No. 60 of 1996 (Hartnett) (1997) 2 Cr. App. R. (S).

Attorney-General's Reference No. 7 of 1994 (Chadwick) (7^th July, 1994) Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England (No. 94/1736/R1).