Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC080

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26^th May 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

John James Anderson

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

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Anderson and two friends were walking through St Helier in the early hours of New Year's Day 2006 after having consumed alcohol.  They came across a group of three other people who were known to Anderson from his school days.  Words were exchanged between some of the group which were of a jovial or innocuous nature.  The group of former school friends walked away but Anderson's group stopped and stared after them.  Anderson's group then ran after the first group.  At a time prior to the two groups meeting Anderson had picked up a plastic "wet floor" sign.  Anderson's group confronted the other group and without any provocation Anderson shoved the sign into the face of one of the other group.  This blow resulted in two front teeth being fractured and a minor contusion of the lip.  In the light of the certain comments made before the incident and after the incident by Anderson to the victim there was a question mark over whether a homophobic element was involved in this assault.

The victim attended the A & E Department and thereafter had emergency dental treatment but was not at the time able to afford full dental treatment to repair the two front teeth.  An Impact Statement was prepared which indicated that he was now more reserved and his social life had been affected as he was frightened of going out.

Anderson was identified by his victim and was subsequently interviewed by the Police.  He denied the grave and criminal assault and denied being in King Street at the time of the assault, despite the existence of CCTV recordings showing him there with his friends and the fact that one of his friends had made a full statement identifying Anderson as the assailant.

Despite these denials in interview, he subsequently entered a guilty plea before the Magistrate's Court.

In accordance with the factors identified in Harrison -v- The Attorney General [2004]JCA046 the Crown took a starting point of four years' youth detention.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view there was substantial mitigation available to Anderson.  Whilst he had maintained an unrealistic denial of the offence during interview under caution, he had entered a guilty plea on an early occasion.  He had written a letter to the Court and also to the victim apologising and expressing remorse for his actions.  There was evidence of another side to his character from the various references.  The Crown also treated as significant his age.  He was an immature individual.  The Crown felt that Anderson fell on the line of between a non-custodial and a custodial sentence.  The nature and seriousness of the assault warranted a custodial sentence, whereas on the other hand an all embracing non-custodial sentence as recommended by the Social Enquiry Report might have been a better option in the long term.

The Defence's instruction was that this was not an assault committed because of the sexuality of the victim.  The Defence confirmed that the background was that Anderson had been bullied about his own appearance whilst at school and that a member of the group had made reference to his appearance and that the victim has enquired of him why he was so sensitive to those comments.  The Defence acknowledged that these matters had not been raised by the Defendant either at interview with the Police or thereafter.  It was further contented that Anderson had not intended to hit the victim but merely to scare him by pushing the sign towards his face but because of his level of intoxication he had misjudged it and therefore had hit the victim.  He had apologised to the victim and had expressed remorse for his actions and was willing to pay compensation.  There were a number of new factors in Anderson's life which justified the imposition of a non-custodial sentence e.g. new employment, new girlfriend, change in his attitude towards drinking etc.  His life was now full of positive influences and he had much to lose if he was to be imprisoned.  An apology to the Court was also offered.

Previous Convictions:

He had four previous convictions for a total of 9 offences including four offences of assault and other offences of dishonesty and public order.  He had not previously received a custodial sentence.

Conclusions:

£1,850 compensation payment to Mr Page.

Previous order dismissed no extra penalty.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

240 hours community service, 2 years probation and 12 months exclusion order save for 6^th Category.

£1,850 compensation payment.  Compensation order to be paid at £50 per week.

Previous order dismissed no separate penalty.

The Defendant was to be sentenced for a Grave and Criminal Assault committed on an acquaintance.  It was an unprovoked assault in which the victim had been struck in the face by a plastic sign resulting in two broken front teeth and considerable pain.  It was alleged that the Defendant and his two friends had laughed and taunted the victim albeit this had been denied.  The Court noted from the Impact Statement that prior to the assault the victim had been a carefree individual but he was now fearful to go out at night and his social life had been adversely affected by this attack.  The Court noted with concern that it appeared that the victim had not been advised of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which would have assisted him in funding the restoration of the teeth.  On arrest Anderson had denied any involvement and accused all the witnesses of lying.  He was now aged 20 and had a bad record including four offences of assault which included an assault committed whilst on bail and he had previously breached his Probation by committing an unprovoked assault on a 13 year-old boy. 

In mitigation he had entered a guilty plea and expressed remorse.  The Court had been advised by Defence counsel that there was some taunting by one of the witnesses or by the victim which had a marked effect on him which had led to his aggressive reaction.  It was contended that he was now a different person.  The Court felt that Anderson had been very fortunate in that the Crown had moved for a non-custodial sentence as this was a serious assault and he was fortunate not to receive custody.  The Court was minded to grant the conclusions.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for a grave and criminal assault upon an acquaintance.  The assault was unprovoked and involved striking the victim in the face with a plastic sign causing the breaking of two front teeth and considerable pain. 

2.        The defendant and his friends according to some evidence, although it is denied by the defendant, laughed at and taunted the victim after the attack.  The victim impact assessment four months after the event indicates that a carefree individual has been turned into a young man who is fearful to go out late at night and whose social life has been affected to a marked degree.

3.        In passing we wish to express our concern that the victim does not appear to have been advised of the existence of a criminal injuries compensation fund to which we have no doubt he is at liberty to apply in order to obtain the funds to restore the teeth broken in this attack.

4.        On arrest Anderson denied any involvement in the attack and accused all the witnesses of lying although when first presented before the Magistrate's Court he did plead guilty. 

5.        Anderson is now 20, he was 19 at the time of the offence.  He has a bad record involving four offences of assault.  This offence was committed whilst he was on probation.  Indeed he had previously breached the probation order which had been imposed for an unpleasant assault upon a 13 year old boy.

6.        Turning to the mitigating factors the defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence and has expressed remorse for his actions.  We have been told by counsel that there was some taunting whether by the victim or by somebody else which had a marked effect upon him and led to his aggressive reaction.  We are also told by counsel that he has been assisted by the Probation Service to come to terms with that, and that he is now a different person from the person who committed this very unpleasant assault at the beginning of this year.

7.        We think you are very fortunate that the Crown Advocate has moved conclusions in the way in which he did.  This was a serious assault and you are in some ways extremely fortunate not to be suffering a custodial sentence.  We are going to grant the conclusions and you will perform 240 hours' Community Service to the satisfaction of the community service organiser.  You will be placed on probation for 2 years, subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by the Probation Service.  We will make a 12 months' exclusion order excluding you from licensed premises, except those holding a 6^th Category Licence, pursuant to the Licensed Premises Exclusion of Certain Persons (Jersey) Law 1998.  We will also make a compensation order in favour of the victim in the sum of £1,850 which you will pay at the rate of £50 a week and if you fail to pay you will incur a 6 months' term of youth detention in default.  The alternative to Community Service is 18 months' youth detention as recommended by the Crown.

Authorities

Licensed Premises Exclusion of Certain Persons (Jersey) Law 1998.