Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC061

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st April, 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and Allo

The Attorney General

-v-

Neil Stuart Golder

Graham Fraser

Scott Robert Harben

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

Neil Stuart Golder

1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against 3rd party risks contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Having in a public place an offensive weapon contrary to Article 43 (1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.  (Count 7).
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault.  (Count 8).

Age:  35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1, 2 and 3 could have been dealt with by the Magistrate's Court but were committed with the far more serious counts 4 to 8.  Counts 4 to 8 relate to offences committed on 18^th December, 2005 at about 10.30 p.m. at night in the streets of St. Helier.  Golder owed a drugs debt to a Mr Marett.  He claimed to be receiving threat from Mr Marett.  He arranged by mobile phone to meet Mr Marett to "sort things out", taking the co-accused Fraser with him.  Golder and Fraser armed themselves with broken bottles before going to the meeting.  Harben accompanied Mr Marett.  All defendants were drunk.  There was a fight between Fraser and Harben in Halkett Street where mutual punches were exchanged but Harben suffered serious injury to his chin when he was glassed by Fraser.  Golder attempted to strike Mr Marett with the broken bottle he was carrying but he was so intoxicated he fell over and the blow did not connect.  Much of the activity was captured on CCTV.  Harben required 60 stitches to his chin and would carry a permanent scar.  No other significant injuries suffered by other participants.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Remorse.  Golder was on bail.

Previous Convictions:

Seven convictions for nine offences, eight of which were drugs offences.  Had not been imprisoned before.

Conclusions:

Count 2:	£400 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:	£400 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 8:	18 months' imprisonment.

Total 18 months' imprisonment.

Graham Fraser

1 count of:	Driving at an excessive speed contrary to Article 21 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having in a public place an offensive weapon contrary to Article 43 (1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.  (Count 4).
1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault.  (Count 5).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1, 2 and 3 could have been dealt with by the Magistrate's Court but were committed with the far more serious counts 4 to 8.  Counts 4 to 8 relate to offences committed on 18^th December, 2005 at about 10.30 p.m. at night in the streets of St. Helier.  Golder owed a drugs debt to a Mr Marett.  He claimed to be receiving threat from Mr Marett.  He arranged by mobile phone to meet Mr Marett to "sort things out", taking the co-accused Fraser with him.  Golder and Fraser armed themselves with broken bottles before going to the meeting.  Harben accompanied Mr Marett.  All defendants were drunk.  There was a fight between Fraser and Harben in Halkett Street where mutual punches were exchanged but Harben suffered serious injury to his chin when he was glassed by Fraser.  Golder attempted to strike Mr Marett with the broken bottle he was carrying but he was so intoxicated he fell over and the blow did not connect.  Much of the activity was captured on CCTV.  Harben required 60 stitches to his chin and would carry a permanent scar.  No other significant injuries suffered by other participants.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Remorse.  Fraser has mental health problems and acknowledged he was an alcoholic who became aggressive when drunk.  He had been in custody since his arrest in December.

Previous Convictions:

Twelve convictions twenty-five offences, eight of which were offences against the person.  In November 2003 had been in prison for one year for grave and criminal assault.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£275 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	4 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:	£275 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Scott Robert Harben

1 count of:	Being disorderly on licensed premises contrary to Article 82 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974. (Count 3).
1 count of:	Breach of the peace.  (Count 6).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1, 2 and 3 could have been dealt with by the Magistrate's Court but were committed with the far more serious counts 4 to 8.  Counts 4 to 8 relate to offences committed on 18^th December, 2005 at about 10.30 p.m. at night in the streets of St. Helier.  Golder owed a drugs debt to a Mr Marett.  He claimed to be receiving threat from Mr Marett.  He arranged by mobile phone to meet Mr Marett to "sort things out", taking the co-accused Fraser with him.  Golder and Fraser armed themselves with broken bottles before going to the meeting.  Harben accompanied Mr Marett.  All defendants were drunk.  There was a fight between Fraser and Harben in Halkett Street where mutual punches were exchanged but Harben suffered serious injury to his chin when he was glassed by Fraser.  Golder attempted to strike Mr Marett with the broken bottle he was carrying but he was so intoxicated he fell over and the blow did not connect.  Much of the activity was captured on CCTV.  Harben required 60 stitches to his chin and would carry a permanent scar.  No other significant injuries suffered by other participants.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Remorse.  Harben was on bail.

Previous Convictions:

Three convictions comprising eight offences, two of which were against the person.  In 2001 Harben had been imprisoned for 2 years for grave and criminal assault.

Conclusions:

Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 3.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 3:	50 hours' Community Service Order or 2 months' imprisonment in default.
Count 6:	60 hours Community Service Order or 3 months' imprisonment in default, consecutive to Count 3..

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Golder.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Fraser.

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for Harben.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Following some form of argument, Golder and a man called Simon Marett agreed to meet outside MacDonalds, allegedly to sort matters out.  Golder took Fraser with him and they each armed themselves before they left Golder's home with a bottle, which they smashed, leaving the bottle with sharp broken edges and they then placed the broken bottles in their respective pockets.

2.        At the scene Marett arrived with Harben.  A fight ensued and we have seen it on CCTV.  During the course of that Golder attempted to strike Marett with his bottle, but fortunately he failed to connect, probably because of his state of intoxication and indeed he fell over in the course of trying to deliver the blow.

3.        Harben and Fraser exchanged punches and Fraser then struck Harben on the chin with the broken bottle causing injury to Harben which required 60 stitches and which has left him with permanent scarring.

4.        This Court has repeatedly said that those who use violence on the streets of St Helier, particularly with weapons, will be severely punished.  In this case Golder and Fraser deliberately armed themselves with the broken bottles because they anticipated the possibility of violence. 

5.        Fraser has a long record with eight previous offences of assault, including one in November 2003, of grave and criminal assault.  It is clear from the record that his problem is alcohol and he is prone to violence when drunk. 

6.        In mitigation we take into account the guilty plea and the content of the three reports which we have seen.  We have carefully considered Miss Fitz's argument that this is a turning point, and that we should apply a non-custodial penalty of the strict nature recommended by the Probation Service and the Drug and Alcohol Service.  We have concluded that this is far too serious an assault, carried out by a man with previous convictions for violence, to allow for a non-custodial penalty. We do, however, accept that we can reduce the conclusions slightly.

7.        Fraser the sentence in your case on Count 1, £275.00 or 1 week in default.  On Count 4, 3 months' imprisonment; on Count 5, 3½ years' imprisonment, all of those including the default sentence to be concurrent.

8.        We turn next to Golder.  You too have previous convictions but none for violence.  Yours are mostly for drugs and you have never served a sentence of imprisonment before.  You have kept out of trouble since 1999, and you say you have got your drug problem under control, although that must be open to doubt. 

9.        In our judgment your case can be distinguished quite substantially from Fraser's for two reasons.  First, you do not have a previous record for violence; and secondly, your participation was confined, in terms of aggression, to one blow which we saw, which you failed to deliver because of your intoxication.  As against that, you were the one who arranged the meeting and it is clear from the video that you wished to sort matters out and kept walking towards Marett.

10.      We take into account your guilty plea, and all the matters in the reports and the matters put forward on your behalf by Mr Haines.  We have had regard to everything which appears on the papers before us.  We have considered carefully whether we could deal with you by way of a non-custodial penalty.  But the fact remains that you deliberately armed yourself with this very dangerous weapon.  You were willing to use it and you in fact tried to use it, albeit fortunately, you did not connect.  If you had connected it could have caused extremely serious injury.  In all the circumstances we do not think we can agree to a non-custodial penalty for such an offence.  But we are willing to reduce the conclusions to take account of all the mitigation which we have heard.

11.      In your case the sentence is as follows, on Count 2 a fine of £400, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.  On Count 7, 3 months' imprisonment.  On Count 8, 18 months' imprisonment, all of those concurrent.

12.      We come finally to Scot Harben.  We accept that you are in a completely different position to the others.  You are not charged with assault, what you did was of comparatively minor significance, albeit that you were there, and did participate in this brawl.  Nevertheless, in view of all the mitigation we feel we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence in your case. 

13.      Accordingly, the sentence is as follows, on Count 3, 50 hours Community Service.  On Count 6, 60 hours Community Service, consecutive making a total of 110 hours.  We agree that the sentences we would have had in mind are those recommended by the Crown, namely 2 months and 3 months making a total of 5 months.  I must point out to you, therefore, that if you do not carry out the Community Service, and do exactly what you are told, you can be brought back here and then you are likely to be sent to prison.

14.      Finally, we would like to endorse the tribute which the Crown has paid to Mr Stephen Pyle.  As we say the Court has seen the video.  It is quite clear that Mr Pyle made every effort to try and separate the parties and to stop this incident and he showed considerable courage in doing so, and we would wish to pay a public tribute to him for that and to thank him.

No Authorities