Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC138

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th October 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Lee Pallett

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

Age: 19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 14^th April, 2006, the Defendant, at Roberts Garage, Grève d'Azette, stood next to the petrol pumps with a lit lighter in his hand and threatened to blow up the garage.  (Count 1).  Two males who came to try and stop him were assaulted (Counts 2 and 3).  One had a plant pot thrown at him which was retrieved by the Defendant from a house across the road.  The Defendant kicked out at the second and tried to head-butt him, before once again leaving the scene and returning with a four foot long piece of wood.  He then used this to aggressively beat a door behind which the two males were hiding, continuing to shout racist threats at the men.

On 19^th April, 2006 the Defendant attended Le Bequetterie Farm in Rue des Près.  He came across a group practising music in one of the outbuildings.  The Defendant first made a nuisance of himself before becoming increasingly aggressive and excessively violent.

The violence escalated from a verbal threat to use a hacksaw to cut his victim - to punches to the head and face - to blows with a plastic garden chair that were forceful enough to break the said chair - and finally to the wielding of a metal pole at the victim's back with appreciable force such that a piece of the pole snapped off, and serious bruising was caused (Count 6).

Aggravating factors are that in both cases, the Defendant was not provoked, under the influence of alcohol and prolonged his assaults by leaving the scene and returning with more dangerous weapons.  Also, these offences put the Defendant in breach of a Probation Order ordered in the Magistrate's Court in relation to an assault on a shop keeper, again involving racist threats.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, and psychological problems but not a good character nor real remorse or victim empathy.

Previous Convictions:

Five previous convictions for nine offences including one previous offence of common assault.

Conclusions:

Breach of probation a further 2 months' youth detention, consecutive.

Total sentence 32 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Breach of probation 2 months' concurrent.

Total sentence 30 months' youth detention.

The Court noted the Defendant's problems with temper control, the racist nature of his threats to his first two victims, but acknowledged that some of his difficulties may be beyond his control.

The Court went on to state that offences of violence must be dealt with to reflect the public's fear of such offences.  The assaults were of a serious nature.

The Court took into account the Defendant's youth but concluded that the seriousness of the attack and the Defendant's failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, meant that only a custodial sentence could be justified.

C. M. M. Yates Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This incident in Robert's Garage must have been a very frightening incident for the victims.  You threatened to blow the garage up by igniting your lighter by the petrol pump.  That may not have been a realistic possibility but nevertheless it could well have been very frightening.  You then threw a plant pot at one of them, you struggled violently as they tried to detain you and then you returned with a piece of wood and you struck the door behind which two of them were hiding from you.  During the incident you insulted them for being Portuguese.

2.        In the second incident you threatened the victim with a hacksaw.  You punched him.  You hit him with a plastic chair and finally you hit him on the back with a rusty metal pole which caused him a large bruise.  It is quite clear that you have extreme difficulty in controlling your temper.

3.        These offences place you in breach of a probation order and on that occasion as well you used insulting language about the Portuguese, although we accept from the letter we have seen that that is not your genuine attitude.  Nevertheless that would not be understood by those whom you insulted at the time.  So therefore, that is an aggravating part of the offence.

4.        We have listened to what Mr Landick has said in mitigation.  You have pleaded guilty which is to your credit.  You are a young man still of 19.  You do suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and that clearly causes difficulties which are beyond your control.  We have read carefully the various reports including the psychiatric report and the background report as well as the drug and alcohol report.  We are pleased that your family is here to support you in Court today.  They clearly have been giving you considerable support and you now have the offer of a job as well.

5.        As this Court has repeatedly said offences of violence must be dealt with to reflect society's fear of such offences.  You committed two serious assaults.  They were not at the top of the scale but nor were they at the bottom of the scale.  They were serious offences.

6.        We take into account your youth and we must consider the Young Offenders Law, but we have concluded that the seriousness of the offending and your failure to respond positively to previous probation means that there is no alternative to youth detention.

7.        In relation to the length, we think that the sentence for breach of probation can be made concurrent because we have regard to the totality principle and your youth and we do not wish the sentence to be too long.  The sentence of the Court is on count 1: 6 months, on count 2: 12 months, on count 3: 12 months, all of those concurrent, on count 6: 18 months consecutive and for the breach of probation on the offence of assault: 2 months concurrent.  That makes 30 months' youth detention in total and I must warn you, you may be liable to supervision on your release. 

No Authorities