Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC074

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th May 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Vincent John Cooper

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

Age:  23

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Count 1.  the Defendant was refused service in a public house because he was drunk whereupon he poured his drink over the barman's head.  During the course of being ejected from the premises, a window was broken. 

Counts 2 and 3.  The Defendant had been drinking alcohol with two male friends for several hours in public houses on 12^th December, 2005.  At the time, the Defendant had been in dispute with his former employer, Adrian Baker, who had sacked him.  The Defendant alleged that Mr Baker owed him approximately £600.  Mr Baker and another male were also drinking alcohol in the public house.  Words were exchanged and Mr Baker and the Defendant left the pub and went to Patriotic Street car park where there was an initial altercation.  The victim of Count 2 was present at this time but did not take part in the fight.  Later that evening the victim and two male friends were in the Parade Gardens when they came across Mr Baker and the Defendant.  Further words were exchanged.  The victim walked away from the group but he was pursued by the Defendant who attacked him with a small craft knife.  The Defendant alleged that the victim had pulled a knife on him first:  the victim admitted that he had been in possession of a Stanley knife, which he said he used at work.  The Defendant alleged he had only struck one blow but the victim suffered serious, deep lacerations to his chest and his right forearm, cutting him deeply from elbow to wrist.  The wounds required surgery under general anaesthetic.  The victim's arm was then placed in a plaster cast, to allow the severed ligaments to heal.  Defendant initially gave 'no comment' answers at interview.  The other male witnesses initially misled the police as to who was responsible for the attack.  However, when the Defendant and witnesses were aware of the extent of the injuries suffered, the Defendant admitted full responsibility and this was corroborated by the witnesses.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Defendant alleged he had been provoked and the victim had pulled a knife on him.  Remorse.  Defendant drug addict and problem with alcohol.  Offence committed whilst intoxicated.  Claimed to be traumatised by episode and taking anti-depressant drugs.  When shown extent of victim's injuries, had fully co-operated with police.  Residual youth.

Previous Convictions:

Sixteen convictions for forty-nine offences but none for violence.  Five breaches of probation, two breaches of Community Service Orders and a breach of a Young Offender's licence.

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of knife.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Forfeiture and destruction of knife.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is a disturbing feature of this case that the defendant was carrying a blade of some kind which he was prepared to use as a weapon.  Unfortunately we have not seen the weapon in question and we express the hope that the Attorney General will issue a standing instruction to his Crown Advocates to ensure that any weapon involved in an offence for which a defendant is to be sentenced is made available to the Court. 

2.        We have been told that the weapon in question here is a craft knife attached to a key ring and we have interpreted this as meaning a form of Stanley knife.  Defence counsel was prepared to accept that description of the weapon in question. 

3.        The scenario presented to us by the defence, namely that the defendant responded aggressively to extreme provocation from the victim breaking the craft knife off the key ring and causing the serious injuries to the victim in one slashing movement seems to us inherently implausible.  Nevertheless in the absence of sight of the knife and key ring we are going to accept it and will sentence the defendant on that basis.

4.        It does seem to us surprising that such a deep long wound could be caused to the inside of the arm at the same time as a wound to the chest, but we accept the explanation.  We also accept that the victim was wearing nothing but a T-shirt in December so that there was little if any clothing to penetrate. 

5.        Having said all that it remains a very serous matter to commit a grave and criminal assault with a knife in a public place in all the circumstances of this offence.  The Court will not tolerate violence of this kind.  The defendant has a bad record, but he has no previous conviction for violence.  Counsel has put a number of mitigating factors before us.  The defendant is a young man of 23, and he has pleaded guilty to the offences.  He was subject to extreme provocation from the victim and has expressed his remorse for the offences.  He is said to have been greatly affected by the consequences of his violent attack and has apologised to the victim.  Furthermore, he co-operated with the police and told them where he had hidden the knife.  Taking all the mitigation available to the defendant fully into consideration we will impose the following sentences.

6.        On Count 1, you will be sentenced to 1 week's imprisonment.  On Count 2, to 4 years' imprisonment.  On Count 3, to 6 months' imprisonment, all those sentences to run concurrently making a total of 4 years' imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the knife.

No Authorities