Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC068

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd May 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Edward Gary Francis Richomme

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

Age:  19

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Following an evening of drinking the accused and his friend went to the Live Lounge nightclub in James Street.  They left shortly after midnight.  A man approached them.  Words were exchanged and the accused was pushed twice.  A scuffle broke out and a fight ensured during which the accused punched the man three times, kicked him to the region of his head and stamped on his head.  The violent mêlée lasted just over 2 minutes.  The police were called and eventually found the accused hiding behind a motor vehicle.  During interview the accused admitted drinking a bottle of JD whisky, and a further JD whisky and a shot at the Live Lounge.  On a scale of intoxication of 1 to 10 the accused placed himself at 9½.  He consistently denied knowing the victim.

Shortly prior to sentence background reports were received.  From these it became clear the accused had suggested to the respective authors that the victim of the assault was his childhood sexual abuser.  A Newton trial was arranged.  In the meanwhile the police conducted further enquiries which identified the victim.  He was not related to the accused and had ever met him.  He had never been investigated by the police in respect of allegations of sexual abuse concerning the accused.

The victim had been drinking all day at a party.  In a statement recorded some six months after the event he remembered coming across two or three men, exchanging words with one of them, shouting and pushing.  He said he had been punched by two men and remembered failing to the floor, rolling onto his side and covering his head with his arms to protect himself against kicks connecting with his head and upper body.  On his account he sustained grazing to his right cheek.  A female friend claimed he had bad grazing to his left hand side of his face and a cut on his nose.  (Count 1).

Whilst at liberty following charge in respect of the attack in James Street (subject to a condition he not enter licensed premises) the accused went to La Cala nightclub with his cousin.  He was asked to leave through the rear doors.  As the doorman went to close the doors the accused punched him in the left eye.  The accused ran from the area.  The doorman chased him through streets in the town.  The accused picked up some empty bottles and threw them at the doorman (none made contact).  He was eventually arrested on the roof of a nearby bar.  A number of officers were present.  He had to be restrained and was found to be drunk.  He became argumentative, obstructive and abusive.  The victim suffered minor bruising and swelling to the lower eyelid and a small sub-conjunctival haemorrhage in the left eye.  The police doctor concluded his injuries were consistent with one punch of moderate force.  (Count 2).

During interview the accused admitted drinking at home and then consuming five cans of larger outside in West Centre.  He repeatedly claimed the doorman was confused and said he had witnessed another person delivering the punch.  He remembered being chased by the doorman but denied throwing bottles.  He alleged the doorman had thrown a bottle at him.

Breach of Probation

The accused was charged jointly with three others with breaking and entering commercial premises at Rue des Prés (at night) and larceny of alcohol valued at £60 and a packet of Pringles (breaking and entering and larceny).

Police officers attended Le Geyt flats late one evening where there was a report of a fight in progress.  On arrival they found three men including the accused.  All three were drunk and very excitable.  On searching the accused an officer found a small lump of resinous substance (possession of cannabis).

Early one evening a taxi driver was driving along Halkett Place in the direction of Hill Street.  As he drove to the junction with Queen Street he observed the accused standing in the middle of the road facing his car waving his hands in the air.  The taxi driver slowed down and attempted to drive past.  As he did so the accused approached his vehicle and swung his hand at the nearside mirror.  He stood back then hit it again.  The glass fell out.  The accused was identified by the police and arrested shortly afterwards.  During interview the accused said he had been too drunk to remember the events leading to his arrest (malicious damage).

Breach of Community Service Order

During the early hours one morning a party was taking place at an address in St Saviours Road.  The police had been called twice as a result of excessive noise.  On the third visit several officers attended to end the party.  On entering the property one of the officers called out to a man on the first floor landing.  The man gave a name - not that of the accused.  The officer proceeded up the stairs and recognised the man as the accused.  The accused was told by the officer to leave the premises.  He was noted to be intoxicated.  Officers were standing on the stairs.  The accused went to walk past and pushed out with his right elbow and right shoulder with force causing one of the officers to become unbalanced.  The officer regained his balance and the accused was placed on the floor.  (Obstructing/refusing to obey the police).

The accused attempted to head-butt the officers and kicked out with his legs.  He was handcuffed after a struggle.  (Resisting arrest).

During the early hours of one morning police officers were directed to Rouge Bouillon following reports of a fight.  The accused was located and spoken to.  The accused became abusive.  He was noted to be very intoxicated.  The officers asked him to calm down.  He did not, then spat on the pavement (Drunk and disorderly).

Members of the public were in the area.  As a result of the accused's behaviour he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly and handcuffed.  He became violent and tried to head-butt the officers.  He then attempted to kick them and had to be placed to the floor.  Having calmed down the accused again attempted to kick and head-butt the officers (resisting arrest).

There was further evidence of minor offending during the continuance of the Probation and Community Service Orders.  In each case the order had been allowed to continue.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (although the weight to be given to the guilty plea in relation to Count 1 was largely diminished in light of accused's wish to proceed to a Newton trial).  Remorse.  Youth.  Tragic family background.  Accused had been subjected to physical and sexual abuse as a child and had since undergone taunting by his abusers.  He had witnessed the abuse of his mother.  He had experienced a number of tragedies and misfortunes including the death of his step-father, attempted suicide of his aunt, his mother's depression, his grandfather's death, being ostracised by his extended family and the accidental hanging of his 11 year old sister following which he had identified the body. The accused was attempting to deal with these emotional problems in prison and wished to resume his education with a view to becoming an apprentice carpenter.

Previous Convictions:

Appalling criminal record stretching back to 2001.  Record including multiple convictions before the Youth Court and the Magistrate's Court for assault, assault on the police, resisting arrest, being drunk and disorderly and refusing to obey the police.  Accused had so far dealt with by means of fines, Probation and Community Service.  He had consistently breached such orders.

Conclusions:

Breach offences : 6 months' youth detention..

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Breach offences: 6 months' youth detention, all concurrent.

The accused had been placed on Probation by the Youth Court for three offences in November, 2004.  He had since been dealt with leniently with the order being allowed to continue on three occasions.  He was now in breach of Probation and Community Service Orders.  Count 1 was a serious assault.  The court had consistently said violence on the street would not be tolerated and would result in substantial prison sentences.  This was to discourage others and to keep the streets safe.  Count 2 involved a single punch and thrown bottles.  The accused's counsel accepted youth detention would normally be appropriate.  She had, however, powerfully and eloquently described this as an exceptional case.  The Court had considered this carefully but had concluded there was no alternative to youth detention on the basis the accused had previously shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial measures and the seriousness of the offending.  The Court would look to the length of sentence.  It was accepted 3 years' youth detention in total could not be criticised.   The accused owed a debt to his counsel and his mother (who had written a letter in support).  In addition the Court was impressed with a letter written by the accused.  The Court regarded the case as exceptional and, as an act of mercy, would reduce the sentence moved for.  The accused had already served five months.  The court hoped he would keep up the good work and that this would allow him to see a light at the end of the tunnel.  There was a need for him to address his drink problem. 

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In November 2004, the Youth Court placed you on probation for three offences.  Since then you have been leniently dealt with by the Youth Court and the Magistrate's Court, which allowed that Probation Order to continue despite your coming before the Court for further offences on three subsequent occasions.  As a result you are now in breach of that Probation Order and of the Community Service Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court in August.

2.        Now you are before us for two assaults.  The first one is a grave and criminal assault.  That was a serious offence which included punching, a kick to the region of the head when the victim was on the ground and stamping on his head when he was on the ground.

3.        This Court has repeatedly said that those who use violence in the streets can expect to suffer a substantial prison sentence.  This Court is determined to do all it can to discourage such conduct and to keep the streets as safe as possible. 

4.        The second assault was less serious.  It involved a punch to the face of the door man and throwing some bottles at him. 

5.        Miss Fitz has accepted that in normal circumstances these offences would justify youth detention.  She has very eloquently and powerfully put forward that this is a truly exceptional case, for the reasons which she has given, which we do not think it necessary to repeat in public.  She submits that the best course would be to impose a non-custodial sentence.

6.        We have given that very careful consideration, but in the end we have concluded there is no alternative to youth detention having regard to the terms of Article 4 of the 1994 Law; and that is on the basis that you have previously shown yourself unable, or unwilling, to respond to non-custodial sentences and the totality of the offending is too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence. 

7.        So we have got to consider for how long.  As to that we accept that for what you did and with your previous offending the Crown's conclusions for a total of 3 years cannot be criticized.  But we have listened to everything that Miss Fitz has said.  You owe her a great debt, as do you owe your mother a debt for the very powerful letter which she has written and you can take credit yourself for the letter you have written.  We have read both letters and listened to Miss Fitz, and we do regard this as being a wholly exceptional case.  And, therefore, as an act of mercy we are going to reduce the sentence.  We do that in the hope that it will encourage you to maintain the progress that you are making at the moment.  We are going to reduce it, therefore to 18 months.  You have already served 5 months and we hope that will enable you to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  We urge you to keep up the good work that you are doing in prison, so that when you come out you really can start afresh and not get into trouble again, particularly when under the influence of alcohol.   You are going to have to address your problem with drink.

8.        The sentence of the Court is as follows.  On Count 1, 18 months' youth detention.  On Count 2, 6 months' youth detention.  For the offences for which you were placed on probation, the breaking and entering, 5 months' youth detention.  The possession of cannabis 1 month's youth detention.  Malicious damage 2 weeks' youth detention, all of those concurrent.  For the offences you have been on community service, obstructing the police, 1 month's youth detention.  Resisting arrest 1 month's youth detention.  Drunk and disorderly, 1 month's youth detention.  Resisting arrest, 1 month's youth detention, all of those concurrent with each other and concurrent with the other sentences.  In other words a total of 18 months' youth detention, and I must warn you that you may be liable to supervision when you are released.

No Authorities