Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC111

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th August, 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jonathan Anthony Nolan

And

Paul Terence Anthony Joseph Nolan

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

Jonathan Anthony Nolan

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.

 

Age:     21.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of 18 March 2005, CCTV footage recorded the Defendants and the victim spilling into Mulcaster Street from inside Chambers.  Jonathan Nolan was seen suddenly, and with no prior physical provocation, to punch the victim on the lower face and the victim then immediately fell backwards onto the road.  A general melee developed in the street involving various persons outside Chambers.  During the melee, the victim reached up to Paul Nolan and dragged Paul Nolan to the ground.  Whilst on the ground, the victim was then punched four times about the head by Jonathan Nolan and also kicked by him in the shoulder area.  Paul Nolan was then seen to walk to the side of the victim, who was by then cowering on the ground on his knees with his hands and arms up trying to protect his head, and kicked the victim's upper body/shoulder area.  A general fracas was then seen to ensue involving other members of the public.

The victim required four stitches to facial injuries as well as £1,500 reconstructive dental surgery.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Aged 21 years.  Native of Dublin, Eire.  No relevant previous convictions.  The instigator of the attack.  No physical provocation from the victim but the victim had earlier taunted him inside Chambers over a medical condition.  Intoxicated.  Full co-operation and frank in interview.  Remorseful.  Early guilty plea (but there was overwhelming CCTV evidence against him).  Totally out of character.  Young child in Jersey and attempting reconciliation with the mother.

 

Previous Convictions

None relevant.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

18 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

240 hours Community Service and exclusion Order from 1^st and 7^th category licensed premises.

A nasty assault in a public place.  Oral provocation, particularly to Jonathan Nolan accepted but no excuse.  Drink-fuelled young men cannot retaliate an insult with an assault.  Such incidents will normally attract an immediate prison sentence.  This was a general melee among drunken youths and must have been frightening for any members of the public in the vicinity.  Fortunately the victim's injuries were not more serious.  Given all mitigation, including that Jonathan Nolan is assessed as at low risk of re-offending and Paul Nolan at very low risk of re-offending and the hardship a sentence of imprisonment would have on those who rely heavily on each of them, the Court would very exceptionally grant non-custodial sentences but particularly Jonathan Nolan came very close to an immediate custodial sentence.

Compensation Order, jointly and severally, of £1,521.00, 6 months to pay, 6 months' imprisonment in default.

 

 

Paul Terence Anthony Joseph Nolan

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.

 

Age:     31.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See above under Jonathan Anthony Nolan.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Aged 31 years.  Native of Dublin, Eire.  Limited role in the attack.  Intoxicated.  Early guilty plea.  Previous good character.  Assault totally out of character.  Lives with partner in Jersey and expecting their first child.  Good work record.

 

Previous Convictions

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

180 hours Community Service and exclusion Order from 1^st and 7^th category licensed premises (except when assisting sister working at the Poacher's Tavern).

A nasty assault in a public place.  Oral provocation, particularly to Jonathan Nolan accepted but no excuse.  Drink-fuelled young men cannot retaliate an insult with an assault.  Such incidents will normally attract an immediate prison sentence.  This was a general melee among drunken youths and must have been frightening for any members of the public in the vicinity.  Fortunately the victim's injuries were not more serious.  Given all mitigation, including that Jonathan Nolan is assessed as at low risk of re-offending and Paul Nolan at very low risk of re-offending and the hardship a sentence of imprisonment would have on those who rely heavily on each of them, the Court would very exceptionally grant non-custodial sentences but particularly Jonathan Nolan came very close to an immediate custodial sentence.

Compensation Order, jointly and severally, of £1,521.00, 6 months to pay, 6 months' imprisonment in default.

 

 

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Fogarty for Jonathan Nolan.

Advocate R. Juste for Paul Nolan.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 

1.        Jonathan and Paul Nolan you were both involved in a nasty assault on the victim, but the parts you played were different.  You, Jonathan Nolan punched the victim on his face so that he fell to the ground and then whilst he was struggling with your brother, Paul, you punched him four times to the head and you then kicked him to his right shoulder.  You, Paul Nolan, were dragged to the ground by the victim after he had been knocked down and then when the incident appeared to be over and the victim was simply cowering on the ground you deliberately kicked him once to the upper part of his body.

2.        We accept that there was some verbal provocation.  In particular there was provocation to you Jonathan in relation to your alopecia, about which you were sensitive.  But that was no excuse.  Drink fuelled young men must realise that an insult never excuses violence.

3.        The clear policy of this Court is that offences of violence of this nature attract a prison sentence.  We have now seen the CCTV and it is clear that quite apart from the actions which you undertook, there was a general melee amongst drunken youths.  It must have been a frightening incident for anyone who was passing by in the locality.  It seems inevitable that these drunken youths had been served alcohol in one or more of the near by pubs.  We certainly wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Attorney General and the Licensing Unit and ask them to look into whether there is evidence of breaches of the Licensing Law by any of the pubs at which these youths had been.

4.        Although that is the clear policy of the Court, there is always room for exception and both counsel urge that this is an exceptional case.  Jonathan, in your case your counsel relies on your youth, the fact that you have only got one minor previous conviction, that you pleaded guilty, you have a good work record, you have very good references, it was out of character, the background report says you are at low risk of re-offending and the hardship to your child and girlfriend which would be caused by a prison sentence.

5.        In your case, Paul Nolan, you also pleaded guilty immediately, you have no previous convictions at all, you have an extremely good work record, a responsible job, and exceptionally good references.  We accept, as we do with your brother, that this was out character and the Social Enquiry Report goes so far as to say that you are at very low risk of re-offending.  Both reports recommend non-custodial sentences.

6.        We are satisfied Paul Nolan in your case that, in view of your limited involvement, and all the mitigation we have referred to, we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  The sentence is that you will undertake 180 hours community service.  The sentence we would have had in mind would be 12 months' imprisonment, as moved by the Crown.  We order a compensation order of £1,521.00 which is in respect of the dental costs which are to be incurred, provided they are incurred, and we also make an exclusion order from all 1^st and 7^th Category Licensed premises for 6 months with the one exception of the Poacher's Inn when you are working there to assist your sister.

7.        Jonathan Nolan, we have found your case more difficult.  Your involvement was much greater and you deserve to go to prison.  But on balance we have just been persuaded that we can deal with this by way of a non-custodial sentence, but you should regard yourself as extremely fortunate.  In your case the sentence will be one of community service for 240 hours and we say that the equivalent sentence we had in mind was one of 18 months' imprisonment.  We also make a compensation order of £1,521.00 in your case.  That sum of course is joint and several so in effect you each have to pay half.  We similarly make an exclusion order in your case from all 1^st and 7^th Category Licensed premises for 6 months. 

8.        What that means to both of you is that you cannot go into any 1^st or 7^th Category premises for 6 months; if you do then you will be committing an offence and you will be brought back for punishment.  Similarly if you do not carry out the community service, or you commit any other offences, you will be brought back here and sentenced for this offence.  The Court has given you both an opportunity, take advantage of it.

Authorities

Harrison -v- AG [2004]JCA046

AG -v- Nolan (19^th July, 2002) Jersey Unreported 139.

Gill -v- AG (29^th September 1999) Jersey Unreported 160CA.

The Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993.

R -v- Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division).