Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC136

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th September 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Tomasz Sylwester Chmura

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

Age:  24

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The victim of the grave and criminal assault was outside the Havana Club at approximately 1 a.m.  He was refused entrance because he was drunk.  He did not argue and moved a short distance away from the entrance to wait for his friends.  The ensuing incident was captured on CCTV.  The camera showed the Defendant crouching next to the entrance of the Havana Club, the victim was turned away and then stood next to the Defendant.  Suddenly the Defendant got up and threw a punch at the victim's face, then head butting the victim and throwing a second punch.  The victim did not take any offensive action towards the Defendant.  The victim suffered a swollen nose and the loss of three upper front teeth, although he had pre-existing dental problems.  The cost of restoring the victim's teeth was estimated at between approximately £3,000 and £5,000.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, good character, constant employment.  After completing National Service in Poland had served with the United Nations Peace Keeping Force in Kosovo.  He alleged the victim had provoked him verbally abusing him.  Momentary loss of temper, fuelled by alcohol.  Urged Community Service and expressed willingness to pay compensation to victim.  Defendant claimed he sent part of wages to Poland to support two siblings at university.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Recommended for deportation.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Court adjourned matter of deportation pending receipt of further information from the Defendant, the Probation Service and the Alcohol and Drugs Service regarding matters raised in mitigation which were not apparent in any of the Reports before the Court.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In this case the defendant assaulted the victim by punching him at least twice to the face and head-butting him.  He was caught on CCTV.  He says that although he did not know the victim there was verbal provocation.  Even if there was, this is no excuse.  We wish to make it clear that verbal insults do not justify resorting to violence.  The victim lost two teeth and fractured two teeth, and the cost of the dental repairs may exceed £5,000. 

2.        But there is mitigation, the defendant has pleaded guilty at an early stage.  He has no previous convictions.  He has a good work record and has been employed since his arrival in Jersey earlier this year.  We have also carefully considered the other points which his advocate raised. 

3.        However, there is too much drink-fuelled violence in St Helier.  The Court is determined to do all it can to ensure that those who commit offences of this nature are adequately punished to reflect the public's concern about such violence. 

4.        So even accepting for these purposes the probation assessment that he is at low risk of re-offending the Court thinks that the Crown's conclusions are correct, and we therefore impose a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

5.        We turn then to the question of deportation.  Again we wish to say that, in the vast majority of cases, a foreign national who commits a grave and criminal assault is likely to face a recommendation for deportation.  But in this case, we find ourselves with a difficulty; because the first question we must ask is whether the defendant's continued presence in Jersey is detrimental?  The first difficulty is that there is a conflict between the Probation Report and the Alcohol and Drug Report.

6.        The Probation Report says the defendant is at a low risk of re-offending.  Mr Gafoor, on the other hand, says that the likelihood of future alcohol related offending appears high.  We feel we need further assistance to resolve this apparent conflict.  We are therefore going to ask for further information from Probation and Drug and Alcohol on this aspect and we recommend that Mr Gafoor and the Probation Officer meet to discuss it. 

7.        The second area where we have a difficulty is that we have been given information this morning which was not mentioned previously to the Probation Service.  We were told this morning that the defendant pays £300 a month to his family; that this is used to support two siblings at university in Poland; and that they would have to leave university if he did not pay this money.  None of this was mentioned in the Probation Report, except for a passing reference to the payment of some money. 

8.        So before we decide whether to recommend deportation, we wish to receive further reports from the Probation Service and Mr Gafoor on the matter I have already raised.  And we wish to receive independent proof that Mr Chmura has been paying £300 a month to his family whilst he has been here, that his two siblings are at university and that his money is being used to support them and, thirdly that they would have to leave university if he was not to make these payments. 

9.        We are therefore going to adjourn the question of deportation to a future date, which will be fixed by agreement between the prosecution and the defence, at which we will receive any further evidence on these two matters and decide whether or not to make a recommendation for deportation.

No Authorities