Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC184

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

22^nd October 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael  Somerville;

Liam John David Hardman.

 

Michael Somerville

 

First Indictment

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

 

Second Indictment

 

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2).

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

 

Liam John David Hardman

 

First Indictment

 

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

 

Reasons for dismissal of preliminary application, prior to sentencing, by Counsel for M. Somerville that CCTV footage of the assault should not be shown to the sentencing court.

 

 

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

Advocate M.J. Haines for M. Somerville.

Advocate J. Bell for L.J.D. Hardman.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        At the last Samedi morning Sitting of the Court, I sat alone to hear a preliminary application by Counsel for Somerville, who objected to the Court being shown CCTV footage of the assault taking place.  I allowed the CCTV footage to be shown and Somerville and his co-accused, Hardman, were duly sentenced.  This Judgment gives the reasons for my decision.

2.        It must at once be said that, to my certain knowledge, the Court has seen CCTV evidence of an assault, captured on CCTV.  That, as Advocate Haines rightly says, was by consent.

3.        The Crown Advocate customarily produces a factual summary, which is an agreed document.  It is always sent to defence Counsel, so that any points in dispute can be identified.  This can lead to the summary being amended or, if the dispute is material, to a 'Newton' hearing.

4.        The Crown has always supplemented its factual summary, if they are available, with official photographs of the injuries or with the report of the doctor who examined the complainant.  If, for example, a knife were used in the assault, the Crown might wish to produce the knife.  The Court would always be able to exercise its discretion whether to see the knife or not.

5.        I can see no better evidence to put before the Court than the actual events taking place.  The Court, in this case, was made aware of the fact that the injuries were not life-threatening, and were not even, apparently, of a permanent nature.

6.        Advocate Haines put his argument in this way: The footage is evidence; evidence is adduced in order to prove fact; the rôle of the sentencing court is not to deduce fact from evidence.

7.        Of course there is (and in this case, was) mitigation: the lack of injury, the possibility of provocation, and the general character of the accused are all matters that can be taken into account.

8.        Of course the CCTV recording is materially prejudicial, but, in my view, not unfairly so and I allowed the Crown to show the footage without comment.  I then allowed defence counsel to show the footage again (it was, in fact, shown twice) and to make whatever comment they considered appropriate.

9.        In my view, if the CCTV footage of an assault is available, it should be shown. Its disadvantage is that it is silent and does not, of course, show the events that led up to the assault.

10.      I have to say that it was the showing of the CCTV footage (with the other facts)  that allowed the Court in this particular instance to give a non-custodial sentence.

No Authorities.