Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC022

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th February 2006

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Tibbo and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Frank Harold Wolstenholme

Christopher Anthony Mason

Neil Thomas

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:

Frank Harold Wolstenholme

1 count of:	Breach of the peace by fighting (Count 1).
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault (Count 5).

Age:  47

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

When one of the patrons watching football in the Office Pub became involved in an argument with another patron, the three defendants joined others in attempting to eject him and his family. The defendants became involved in fighting outside the Pub in Wharf Street.  All three of them had been drinking, Wolstenholme and Mason to excess.

In addition to general fighting and scuffling, the following specific events occurred:

Wolstenholme ended up kicking the man four times while he was on the floor, three of those blows to the head.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse (letter to victim), no serious injuries caused, good employment record, co-operation with Police, good references, young daughter, addressing his alcoholism..

Previous Convictions:

8 offences including several public order offences in 1970s.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	18 months' imprisonment (consecutive).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	240 hours' Community Service.
Count 2:	240 hours' Community Service (concurrent).

Total 240 hours' community service and 12 month exclusion order.

The Court will always do what it can to stamp out violence, but in this case felt that it could pass non-custodial sentences.  The Crown's conclusions would have been the Court's alternative custodial disposal of the matter.

Christopher Anthony Mason

1 count of:	Breach of the peace by fighting (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Assault (Counts 2 and 3)
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault (Count 4).

Age:  39

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

When one of the patrons watching football in the Office Pub became involved in an argument with another patron, the three defendants joined others in attempting to eject him and his family. The defendants became involved in fighting outside the Pub in Wharf Street.  All three of them had been drinking, Wolstenholme and Mason to excess.

In addition to general fighting and scuffling, the following specific events occurred:

Mason assaulted the man's two sons, one of them on two occasions, by punching them numerous times.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse, no serious injuries caused, good work record, family to support.

Previous Convictions:

8 offences, including assault in 1998.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 4	6 months' imprisonment (consecutive).

Total 9 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	180 hours' Community Service.
Count 2:	180 hours' community service (concurrent).
Count 3:	180 hours' community service (concurrent).
Count 4	180 hours' community service (consecutive).).

180 hours community service plus 6 months' exclusion order.

The Court will always do what it can to stamp out violence, but in this case felt that it could pass non-custodial sentences.  The Crown's conclusions would have been the Court's alternative custodial disposal of the matter.

Neil Thomas

1 count of:	Breach of the peace by fighting (Count 1).
1 count of:	Assault (Count 3).
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault (Court 4).

Age:  42

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

When one of the patrons watching football in the Office Pub became involved in an argument with another patron, the three defendants joined others in attempting to eject him and his family. The defendants became involved in fighting outside the Pub in Wharf Street.  All three of them had been drinking, Wolstenholme and Mason to excess.

In addition to general fighting and scuffling, the following specific events occurred:

Thomas assaulted one of the sons, first by punching him, and later by kicking him three times to the legs and buttocks.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse, no serious injuries caused.

Previous Convictions:

4 offences, including public order offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment (consecutive).
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 4:	9 months' imprisonment.

Total 12 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	180 hours community service (concurrent)
Count 3:	180 hours community service (concurrent).
Count 4:	180 hours community service.

Total:  180 hours community service plus 6 months' exclusion order.

The Court will always do what it can to stamp out violence, but in this case felt that it could pass non-custodial sentences.  The Crown's conclusions would have been the Court's alternative custodial disposal of the matter.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for Wolstenholme.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Mason.

Advocate S. Pearmain for Thomas.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We must at the outset express concern that the Crown and the three defence counsel have all seen the CCTV footage of the incident and this Court has not.  In our view it would have been helpful to assess the course of the incident which after all lasted for 3 minutes.  There are no photographs of injuries and only one medical report from Dr Holmes on the victim, which surprisingly makes no mention of injury caused by kicks.  There is of course remorse and we have read the helpful probation reports and such other reports that have been made available to us.

2.        We have to say this Court will always do what it can to stamp out violence particularly violence in the streets of St Helier, and in particular when there is drunken violence.  The stupidity, and I will say it again, the dangerous stupidity of the defendants is entirely due to drink which all started in a public house.

3.        On his own admission Wolstenholme had drunk 8 pints of bitter, 2 vodkas and some red wine.  He has clearly a drink problem.  Mason had drunk 5 or 6 pints of larger and a Bacardi-breezer and Thomas had drunk 3 pints of larger and 2 Bacardi-breezers.  Of course each has pleaded guilty.  As defence counsel has said that has some value although from what we have heard on the agreed statement the plea was almost inevitable.  I have to say drunkenness is an aggravating offence. 

4.        Why we would have wished to see the CCTV coverage is that those outside were watching the assaults take place.  This was not in that sense an unprovoked assault on innocent people.  This was an incident of the sort of stupidity that occurs in any public house when football is being watched and tragically this incident got out of hand.  In any event we cannot separate the offences of Mason from those of Thomas. 

5.        We are going to start with Mason.  The Probation Office has made a strong recommendation, and we have considered it all very carefully.  You will serve 180 hours' community service and you will also serve a 6 months' exclusion from licensed premises of 1^st to 7^th Category excluding of course shops that sell food. 

6.        Thomas you will also serve 180 hours' community service and you will also have a 6 months exclusion from licensed premises of 1^st to 7^th Category excluding those that sell food.

7.        Wolstenholme your offence is the most serious.  If you had been wearing anything other than soft shoes the consequence might have been very different.  We cannot in the circumstances send you to prison.  You will serve 240 hours community service and we note that you volunteered to stay away from licensed premises.  The Court has decided in any event you will have an exclusion of 12 months from Categories 1 to 7 excluding of course shops that sell food.

8.        I have to say these are alternatives to custody.  If you do not do the community service you will be brought back to Court and you will have to serve a prison sentence, this is not a soft option.  Let no one think, for a moment, that this Court has gone soft on offences of this nature.  The reports that we received are very much in your favour and I have to say to those listening we may not be so lenient in the future.

No Authorities