Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC092

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th July 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Claudia Angela Adele Giumini

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused had been chatting with the victim in Liquid Nightclub.  At some point she offered him a £5 note and asked him to buy her a drink.  The victim went to the bar.  He saw the accused approach him.  She remonstrated with him, punched him twice to the eye and smashed a glass into the right side of his head resulting in minor lacerations and a swollen cheek.  As she was being restrained the accused threw a further three glasses at the victim and his friend (all missed).  Initially she claimed the victim had hit her and stolen her money.  During interview she had little recollection of the events and admitted being very drunk.

Eventually she admitted hitting the victim with a glass.  The accused said she thought the victim had stolen her money and she had gone "ballistic".

Details of Mitigation:

Youth.  Guilty plea (but not entered at the earliest stage).  Remorse.  Good character.  Paranoid personality disorder.  The accused had taken it upon herself no longer to visit pubs or clubs and to tackle her alcohol problem.

Previous Convictions:

None (although previously cautioned at a Parish Hall enquiry for an assault on a female person.

Conclusions:

Twelve months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The use of a glass to strike someone to the head was serious.  The accused was fortunate the victim had suffered no serious injuries.  The victim was in no way to blame.  The accused was of previous good character and had expressed remorse.  The level of her drinking on the night in question had been "frightening".  The Court had considered the guideline judgment of Harrison.  The defendant's mother had informed the Court her daughter no longer drank at home or went to clubs.  Despite her paranoid personality disorder it was drink that provoked her violent behaviour.  Drunken behaviour was unacceptable but there was hope.  Accordingly, the Court would impose 180 hours; Community Service, together with a 12 month's exclusion order from premises holding 1^st, 3^rd or 7^th category licences.  The Court urged the accused voluntarily to seek help from the Drug and Alcohol Service.

A. J. Bellhome,Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. L. I. Davies for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Giumini is 19 years old and therefore falls to be sentenced under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.  This law directs that a sentence of youth detention shall follow unless it considers that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate for a number of reasons.

2.        The use of a glass to strike someone on the head is, as far as we are concerned, as serious an offence as can be imagined.  Fortunately Mr de la Haye, who we see as a totally innocent victim, did not suffer serious injury as he might well have done.  There is no impact statement.  Giumini is a person of previous good character, although she has been three times to a parish hall.  Her remorse is expressed in her own handwriting, but her drinking on the night in question can only be described as frightening.

3.        We have considered very carefully the ten factors of grave and criminal assault set out by the Court of Appeal in Harrison v AG [2004] JCA 046, and we learn that Advocate Davies has been told by Giumini's mother that she now does not drink at home and does not go to night clubs any more.

4.        We have most carefully read the numerous reports and we have formed the impression that despite her paranoid nature drink is at the very root of the problem.  We accept that the Crown and the Court has a duty to discourage an unprovoked attack on an innocent person particularly, as in this case when a glass is used.  This type of drunken, violent behaviour is totally unacceptable. 

5.        However, there is some hope in this case and your family are in Court today.  We are going to impose a sentence of 180 hours' Community Service, that is directly equivalent to 12 months' youth detention asked for by the Crown.  You must also have a 12 months' exclusion order from premises holding 1^st, 3^rd, or 7^th category licence or a combination of them.

6.        I want to tell you this, you breach any of these orders you will have to come back to Court and a custodial order is almost inevitable.  We recommend, because of that reason, that you voluntarily seek help from the Drug and Alcohol and Drugs Service.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.

Harrison -v- AG [2004] JCA 046.