Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC033

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th March 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

John Michael James Hughes

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

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of Monday 31 October 2005, Halloween, Hughes went to a party at the home of a friend.  During the course of the evening, Hughes admitted to having drunk approximately 8 cans of beer.

At 3 am on 1 November 2005, Hughes and a friend were sitting on a sofa in the lounge of the property watching television.  The victim and another person entered the lounge.  A brief argument ensued between the defendant and the victim that involved the television being turned off twice.

On the third occasion when the victim turned the television back on, Hughes walked over to him and kicked him in the mouth.  This blow caused the victim to fall sideways, hit his head on a chest of drawers, and fall to the floor.  The victim was left in a semi-conscious state.  Hughes then dragged him across the room, through the patio doors following which Hughes set him down leaving him outside in November at approximately 3 am, wearing light clothing while semi-conscious.

There was no evidence to indicate that Hughes was wearing shoes during the assault.

On examination of the victim at the A & E department at the hospital, the attending doctor diagnosed a small swelling to the forehead and swelling and bruising to the lower lip.  Dental repair was also needed; the cost of which was £852.00.

Details of Mitigation:

Aged 18 years.  No previous convictions.  The instigator of the attack, no physical provocation from the victim.   Intoxicated.  Co-operative during interview.  Remorseful - telephoned victim during the morning of the attack to apologise and offer to pay for the dental work (and indeed had paid some by time of sentencing).  Timely guilty plea.  Totally out of character - provided many character references.

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Court would normally punish violence with custodial sentence, even when defendant is provoked, as perhaps was the case here.  Not going to impose custodial sentence here but the Court expressed hope that the defendant was thoroughly ashamed of himself and understood what happened when he gets drunk.  The Court noted that intoxication is not an excuse.

A. R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Hughes, generally speaking, the Court punishes grave and criminal assaults by imposing custodial sentences.  The reason for that is that violence of this kind, even if it is provoked in the way in which you were perhaps provoked, is not an acceptable way of resolving disputes.

2.        We are not going to impose a custodial sentence for all the reasons given by the Crown Advocate.  We hope, nonetheless, that you are thoroughly ashamed of what happened on that evening and furthermore understand what can happen when you get yourself so drunk that you lose your self control.  Drunkenness is not an excuse for criminal behaviour.

3.        The Jurats consider that if a sentence of imprisonment had been imposed it would not have exceeded 9 months, and translating that into community service, the sentence of the Court is that you will perform 150 hours' Community Service to the satisfaction of the Community Service Organiser.

No Authorities