[2004]JRC075
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
30th April, 2004
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Clapham. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Peter Edgar Deffains
1 count of: |
Grave and criminal assault |
Age: 38
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The Defendant's company had been involved in a protracted legal dispute with a finance company where the victim was Managing Director. The Defendant had settled action out of court, but had come to resent the victim intensely, even though they had never met.
While out drinking one night, the Defendant came across the victim who was attending a party in Chicago Rock. Later that evening, in the toilets at the restaurant, the Defendant punched the unsuspecting victim full force in the face. At the time the Defendant was wearing a stiff resin cast on his hand. The blow caused severe eye trauma, and approximately £15,000 worth of dental damage.
The Defendant was later arrested, and pleaded guilty on indictment. In putting the grave and criminal assault charge, the Crown took account of the fact that the blow was a very heavy one of which the victim had no notice, and that it had caused serious injuries.
The Defendant accepted that he still felt a great deal of animosity towards the victim.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, previous good character, likely to face lengthy civil action brought by victim, no pre-meditation.
Previous Convictions:
Three minor road traffic offences.
Conclusions:
12 months' imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
This was an unprovoked assault with serious consequences. There was no excuse for this behaviour, which must be met by prison sentence. However, due to mitigation, Court felt able to suspend 12 months' prison sentence for two years.
C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C.J. Scholefield for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. This was an unprovoked assault, which had serious consequences for the victim. He suffered damage to his eye and to his teeth. Fortunately, it appears that neither of these will be permanent.
2. We accept that it involved only one punch and that this was carried out on the spur of the moment when you came face to face with him and it was borne out of a sense of grievance over the business matter which we have heard about.
3. There was no element of premeditation but, of course, the sense of grievance is no excuse whatsoever for what you did and does not justify it in any way.
4. We accept also that the injury was more serious than one might have expected because of the cast that you were wearing on your wrist because of an injury to your thumb. It is clear from the medical evidence that this would have acted as a form of rigid cast which would have accentuated the blow.
5. Offences of this nature are normally met with an immediate custodial sentence. In other words people have to go to prison to reflect the fact that the Court will not accept this sort of conduct and will do its best to protect innocent people going about their business.
6. Mr Scholefield has urged that we should act otherwise. He has spoken of your good character - you have no previous convictions - the fact that you pleaded guilty immediately, your excellent work record, the fact that you have built up a business in partnership with your brother and the references we have read, and the various other matters to which he referred. We accept that this incident was wholly out of character.
7. We note that the Probation Service thinks the risk of your re-offending is low. However we think this case must be met with a prison sentence, but in view of the particularly powerful mitigation and the fact that the assault involved only one blow, we can - exceptionally - suspend the prison sentence.
8. We are going to pass a prison sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. This means that, provided you behave yourself for the next 2 years, you will not actually have to serve that sentence, but if you commit any criminal offence during the next two years then as well as anything you serve for that other offence you will, in addition, have to serve the 12 months' that we are imposing today.
Authorities
Harrison -v- AG [2004]JCA046.
AG -v- Cooper [2002]JRC036.
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Edition): pp.310-318.
Mallet -v- A.G. [2000]JLR256.