Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC139

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th October 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Emma Louise West

Keeley Charlotte O'Brien

Sarah Jane Elizabeth Botrel

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on charges of:

Emma Louise West

 

2 counts:	Grave and criminal assault. (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 4).

Age:  23

Plea: Guilty Counts 2 and 4.  Not Guilty Count 1 (but guilty to common assault).

Details of Offence:

On 9^th April, 2006 West was stopped arriving on the Condor Ferry from Weymouth.  She was arrested on suspicion of importing controlled drugs.  She was subject to an internal examination which proved negative.  West was subsequently released.  Two days later, Customs Officers executed a search warrant at West's home and West was arrested on suspicion of having an internal concealment.  The next evening West produced a bowel movement containing two plastic wrapped packages containing 122 and 124 milligrams respectively of heroin, which comprised on average 34 per cent by weight of diamorphine

On 17^th April, 2006 West, O'Brien and Botrel attacked a 15 year old boy in King's Street.  West instigated the assault by misunderstanding what the boys were saying amongst themselves.  West pushed the victim.  Then, her co-defendants started a violent attack on the boy.

The victim received numerous punches to his head and face, was kneed in the groin and kicked to the body.  Botrel also pulled out a small bottle and struck the victim over the head.  The bottle was then smashed on the floor.  Botrel picked up a piece of broken glass and pushed it into the boy's face causing a cut to his cheek requiring stitches.

Later, as the boy was on his way to Hospital, the defendants approached him again and threatened him.  Botrel then used the piece of glass that she had carried with her from King Street to cut the boy's face again, causing another injury to the other side of his face that again required stitches.  The boy was also spat on.

Botrel and O'Brien then pushed and punched him, and all three stated 'you'd better not be a grass'.  This second attack lasted approximately one minute and left the boy fighting back tears.

Botrel's offending put her in breach of a twelve month Probation Order dating from December, 2005, involving possession and importation of heroin, and receiving a stolen camera.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, residual youth but not a good record.

Previous Convictions:

6 convictions for 11 offences including 2 assaults.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment (consecutive).

Total 15 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment (concurrent).

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

The Court noted that all three Defendants were heroin addicts, with poor criminal records and who were drunk at the time of the offence, and granted the Crown's conclusions regarding Botrel and O'Brien.

With regards to West, the Court acknowledged her limited role in the attack, and her concern for her child but concluded that there was no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence.

However in the circumstances, the court decided that all sentences should run concurrently making a total of 12 months imprisonment.

Keeley Charlotte O'Brien

2 counts :

Grave and criminal assault. (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  20

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See West above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, co-operative at interview and youth but not a good record.  She has failed to respond to previous non-custodial sentences.

Previous Convictions:

11 convictions for 19 offences including 1 assault.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' Youth Detention.
Count 2:	18 months' Youth Detention (concurrent).

Total 18 months' Youth Detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Sarah Jane Elizabeth Botrel

2 counts:

Grave and criminal assault. (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  21

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See West above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (at a late stage), residual youth but not a good record.

Previous Convictions:

9 convictions for 13 offences including 2 assaults.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment (concurrent).

6 months' imprisonment on each charge, concurrent, for breach of Probation.

Total 3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate N. J. Chapman for the West.

Advocate D. M. Cadin for O'Brien.

Advocate D. J. Benest for Botrel.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were all involved in a serious attack on a 15 year old boy on the streets of St Helier.  An aggravating feature of it was that after the first incident you assaulted him a second time when, by chance, you came across him.

2.        You were all very drunk.  You all have a heroin dependency and you all have poor records.  The Court has repeatedly said that violent assaults in St Helier will be punished seriously.

3.        Sarah Botrel, you were the most heavily involved although you were not the instigator and we accept that.  As well as threats and punches and pushing, you hit the victim on the head with a bottle and you then used a piece of broken glass from that bottle to cut his face, once on the first assault and then you did exactly the same when you came across him later in the course of the second assault.  Both those cuts were to his face and required stitches.

4.        You have a bad record with two previous assaults and these offences have placed you in breach of a probation order when the Court gave you a chance in February.

5.        We've listened to what your Advocate has said.  You pleaded guilty, you are still a young person and we note the efforts you are making to conquer your heroin addiction in prison and also the efforts you are making to undergo education there.  We encourage you to continue with that so that you are better placed when you come out of prison.  We have read the letters from you and your family.  Normally a prison sentence for breach of probation is consecutive but you did serve 5 months on remand and therefore we agree with the Crown's conclusions it should be concurrent.

6.        We think the Crown's conclusions are right and therefore the sentence in your case on count 1 is 2 ½ years, on count 2 is 3 years and on all the offences for which you were placed on probation 6 months concurrent with each other, and concurrent with the other sentences, 3 years in all.

7.        Keeley O'Brien you didn't use a weapon but you were very involved in these attacks.  You delivered punches, you kneed the boy in the groin and on the second occasion you uttered threats and you spat at him.

8.        You too have a poor record including one previous assault and you too have a heroin dependency. 

9.        We have listened to what your Advocate said.  You pleaded guilty right from the start and that stands you in good stead, you were co-operative and indeed you indicated you would be willing to give evidence at a Newton hearing, and that is very much to your credit.  You are a young person, you were only 19 at the time, you are 20 now and in your case too the reports suggest that perhaps now is the time when you realise that you need to overcome your heroin addiction.  You have taken counselling and you are on the enhanced status at the prison and we hope very much you will continue with those attempts to conquer your heroin habit, because in the case of all three of you unless you can deal with your drug addiction we fear we will see you before us again.  We've read the letter which you wrote and we have considered, because you are under 21, whether there is any other way we can deal with this, but we have concluded that in view of your failure to respond to probation previously and because the offending in this case is too serious to deal with by way of a non-custodial penalty, there is no alternative but to youth detention. 

10.      We think that the conclusions of the Crown take account of all the mitigation.  In your case the sentence is 18 months' youth detention concurrent on each of the 2 counts.

11.      Emma West you were the least involved.  You did start the first assault by picking on the victim and then pushing him but you did no more and you pleaded guilty only to common assault which has been accepted by the Crown.  In the second assault your role was limited to encouraging the others by shouting and so forth.

12.      You are also before us for drug importation for your own use.

13.      You too have a poor record.  You have pleaded guilty, you are still a young person, and the reports suggest that you too may be at a turning point and realise that you have got to put your heroin addiction behind you and we are pleased to hear you are on naltrexone in an attempt to do that.  We also note your concern for your child and we hope very much that in due course you will be able to re-establish the relationship and assume responsibility. 

14.      In your case too we have, despite what your Advocate has said, concluded that there is no alternative to prison and the sentence is as follows: on count 1: 3 months, on count 2: 12 months, on count 4: 3 months, but we think that in all the circumstances we can make that concurrent rather than consecutive.  So that makes a total of 12 months, rather than the 15 months asked for by the Crown, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities