Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC028

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

17^th February 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Kerr Kilgour

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

Age:  19 years.

Plea:  Guilty

Details of Offence: 

Robbery.  Kilgour approached a man in the early hours of the morning in Rouge Bouillon and demanded his mobile telephone.  When the man tried to run away Kilgour followed him and pushed him.  He then punched him several times to the face, when he fell to the floor Kilgour kicked him repeatedly to the body and stamped on him.  He then took his mobile telephone from his pocket and left the scene.

Possession of cannabis.  Kilgour was found in the street with a small quantity of cannabis for personal use on him.  A further amount was found on him when he was taken to the police station.

Malicious damage.  Whilst being held at police headquarters Kilgour ripped one of the pillows in a cell in to numerous pieces apparently with his teeth.

Assault on a police officer.  Kilgour shouted abuse at a police officer and spat at him the spit hitting him on the right arm.

Common Assault.  Kilgour assaulted a 14 year old boy in Ordnance Yard.  He had pushed him and then punched him several times to the face.  He also humiliated him by telling him to kiss the feet of a female who was watching the incident.

Attempting to pervert the course of justice.  On two occasions Kilgour telephoned the 14 year old victim of the common assault and offered him money if he failed to identify him in a promat identification procedure.

Failing to comply with the requirements of young offenders licence.  All of the above offences were committed whilst Kilgour was on licence, the first offence being committed within les than a month of being released from a 12 month Youth Custody sentence for various offences of taking and driving away, driving whilst disqualified with no insurance, reckless and dangerous driving and larceny of a motor vehicle.

Details of Mitigation:

 Mitigation was limited to his youth.  Kilgour showed no remorse with regard to the robbery and in his question and answer interview showed a callous disregard for his victim.  Psychiatric and psychological reports indicated that he took pleasure in violence and had no empathy for those he assaulted and that these characteristics were likely to remain.  He had previous convictions for violence in a domestic context.  He had pleaded guilty to all the offences for which he was given credit, save that the guilty plea to attempt to pervert the course of justice was only made the day before the trial was due to take place.

Previous Convictions:

 No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years 4 months 2 weeks' youth detention.

The conclusions were granted save that the two weeks Youth detention for breach of licence was made concurrent rather than consecutive making a total of 3 years 4 months.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total 3 years 4 months' youth detention.

The court stated that Kilgour had a poor record including violence and that he had committed his first offence within less than a month of being released from Youth Custody.  The most serious offence was the robbery and the Court referred to the fact that the Royal Court had repeatedly said that it would do all it could to ensure that violence would not be rife in the streets of Jersey.  The Court agreed to sentence on Kilgour's versions of events as to the robbery and common assault which was slightly different from the Crown's version.  Kilgour had accepted that he had decided to steal the telephone and punch the victim three or four times and then stamp on him once or twice on his ankle.  With regard to the common assault, the Court sentenced on Kilgour's version in which he acknowledged that he had punched a 14 year old two or three times and humiliated him.  The Court considered the attempt to pervert the course of justice.  The Court took into account Kilgour's youth, difficult upbringing, guilty plea and all issues within the reports.  It noted that he was of high risk of re-offending and that violence gave him empowerment and enjoyment and that he had no empathy with his victims.  It also took into account his lack of remorse and that this and his enjoyment of violence were likely to continue.  It agreed that under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 there was no other appropriate way to deal with Kilgour other than youth custody and took into account totality when confirming the conclusions.

Miss S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have a poor record which includes offences of violence.  You were released from youth custody as recently as 18^th February, 2005 and you committed the first of these offences as quickly as 5^th March 2005. 

2.        The most serious of the offences is the robbery.  This Court has repeatedly said that it will do all it can to try and ensure that such offences do not become rife in Jersey.

3.        The Court agrees to sentence you on your version of events as put forward by your advocate, namely that you decided to steal the mobile phone from the victim before going across to him;  you punched him three to four times; he fell to the ground and you then stamped on his ankle once or twice.  You agree that you caused all the injuries listed in the medical report.  We accept that when you approached him he was abusive, but in our view this amounts to no excuse whatsoever for what you did and does not reduce the gravity of the offence. 

4.        As to the assault in Count 7, we again sentence you on your version of events but that still involves punching a 14 year old boy two to three times so as to cause the injuries listed in the medical report, then humiliating him in front of an audience by forcing him to get down and kiss the feet of one of the girls present. 

5.        Most seriously, after you had done that you phoned the victim twice and tried to persuade him not to identify you by offering him money.  We accept that no threats were uttered but the mere making of the calls in such circumstances must no doubt have been concerning to the victim.  We think that the Crown's conclusions on those two counts are absolutely correct and this Court must take a firm line in respect of any attempt to pervert the course of justice.

6.        In mitigation we have listened carefully to all that Mr Haines has said very fully on your behalf and we note in particular your youth, your very difficult upbringing, the guilty plea and all the matters set out in the reports; but it is clear that you are at high risk of re-offending.  The psychological report says that you find subjecting others to violence provides you with a sense of empowerment and enjoyment.  It also says that you have no empathy for those you assault since in your view they have it coming and deserve it and it also points out that you have no remorse whatsoever and your lack of remorse and enjoyment from attacking others is likely to continue.

7.        You are under 21 and therefore the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 applies, but we are quite satisfied that there is no alternative to youth detention for two reasons.  Firstly, you have a history of failing to respond to non-custodial sentences and secondly, the totality of the offending in this case is so serious that a non-custodial penalty cannot be justified.  We do urge the continuation of the treatment you are having in prison as outlined to us.

8.        We have to have regard to the totality and that is what we have done.  We have concluded that, subject to one minor point that I will mention, the Crown's conclusions are correct to reflect the seriousness of what you did and also the available mitigation.  The sentence of the Court is as follows, on count 1, 2½ years' youth detention.  On counts 3 and 4, 1 month's youth detention on each, concurrent with each other but consecutive to count 1.  On counts 5 and 6, 1 week on count 5, 3 months' youth detention on count 6, concurrent with each other, but again consecutive to the other sentences.  On count 7, 12 months' youth detention concurrent; on counts 8 and 9, 6 months' youth detention on each of them, concurrent but consecutive to the other sentences; and the one change we make, Count 10, 2 weeks' youth detention, concurrent.  That makes a total of 3 years and 4 months' youth detention and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.