Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC161

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th November 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Albert De Mouilpied

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

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 12^th July, 2006, the Defendant, who had recently been suffering from depression, was prescribed "Oxazepam".  The known side effects of this drug can include confusion, paranoia, illusions, schizophrenia, anxiety and a paradoxical increase in aggression.

That evening, he returned home "very down" as his new medication meant that he would not be able to ride his motorbikes, which were his only form of transport and a passionate hobby.  He took all the prescribed tablets with three bottles of wine.

Later he used an air rifle, for which he did not have a permit, to shoot at furniture, ornaments, walls, ceilings, as well as at a glass shower screen, his front door and its window, whilst also throwing around some of his furniture and taking a door off its hinges.

In the morning, the Police were deployed to secure the area.  During the day, many unsuccessful attempts to contact the Defendant were made and the situation turned into a siege.

The Tactical Firearms Unit tried several times to enter the premises, opening the door by force, but the Defendant was unco-operative, refusing to surrender his weapon "Because it's the only thing between me and you coming in".

Later on, the Defendant came to the front door and raised the air rifle to his shoulder, pointing the end at the officers out of the door window, from which he had beforehand smashed out all of the glass.  He was seen to lower his head into an aiming position, and his hand was in the vicinity of the trigger.  Several of the officers heard the Defendant threaten to shoot at them.

Eventually, unarmed TFU officers again entered the premises by force.  This time they used CS spray to incapacitate the Defendant, and he was arrested.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, and remorse but no benefit of youth.

A relatively good employment record, references, little criminality in the past decade, ability to sustain relationships despite psychiatric problems, shows he lives a pro-social lifestyle.

His "traumatic upbringing", difficult history and documented psychiatric problems undoubtedly played a part in his offending, coming on the end of an eighteen month period of sick leave due to depression, during which there had been failed suicide attempts.

Also, new antidepressant medication when mixed with the alcohol contributed to his erratic behaviour on the day in question.

Previous Convictions:

12 previous convictions for 55 offences (no firearms).

Conclusions:

Total: 2½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 2 years' Probation Order and treatment order and 180 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the gun and ammunition seized.

Restriction on possession of a weapon.

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

Advocate P. M. Livingstone for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        De Mouilpied has pleaded guilty to four counts all arising from the same incident.  The events which gave rise to the indictment all occurred on 30^th July, 2006.  On the Wednesday the defendant was treated by his doctor for depression.  He was prescribed a tablet called "Oxazepam".  There are known side effects which can include confusion, paranoia, illusions, schizophrenia, anxiety and a paradoxical increase in aggression.

2.        He was apparently at that time in a very depressed state.  His seven year old son had died some time earlier and this had triggered his depression.  He left his girlfriend's home to go to his flat.  Soon after midnight he sent a text to his girlfriend and her mother and it is clear that he was totally depressed in being told that he would not, while on medication, be able to ride his motorbikes which were his only form of transport and a passionate hobby for him.

3.        For most of the night he was apparently firing his .22 calibre air rifle at the doors and walls of his flat and at ornaments and fixtures in the flat.  It was not until after 9 o'clock in the morning that the police were called.  The defendant had clearly also been drinking heavily.  He had taken the whole of his prescribed medication. 

4.        It was not until 4.25 in the afternoon, and after the area had been cordoned off, traffic diverted, and with the use of CS spray that the police officers were able to arrest the defendant.  Apparently at one stage he had pointed his rifle at the police officers.  No one fortunately was injured in this incident, but the flat itself was badly damaged. 

5.        The Crown Advocate has stated quite categorically that were it not for the fact that Mouilpied had aimed his weapon at police officers at one stage of this very long siege the Crown would have recommended an individualised sentence.  In R -v- Avis and Others [1998] 1 Cr App R 420 set out the facts and circumstances which a court should take into account when considering sentence and we have very carefully considered the four points that are raised there. 

6.        By any standards an offence containing firearms must be a very serious one.  We have, however, to point out that in this case there are some extraordinary exceptional circumstances.  Advocate Livingstone has included in his mitigation bundle an enormous number, and I use the words advisedly, of character references including, surprisingly, several from the co-tenants of the flats in which Mouilpied lived.  His friends and the tenants have put the damage in the flat back into order so that the agent's chartered surveyors have written to say:

"We are able to confirm that the above mentioned property was returned to Les Vaux Housing Trust in a satisfactory condition".

7.        We can only agree with the probation officer, however when she said, given the serious nature of the matters now before the Court, that should the defendant's mental health deteriorate so severely again it could pose a serious risk of harm to members of the public.  It would appear that this incident was dealt with very efficiently and effectively by the police service and their actions on that day prevented an escalation of events and protected the public.

8.        Whilst Mr Mouilpied is adamant that he had no intention of causing injury he also admitted that at the time he was not in control of himself or his actions and therefore the outcome could have been very different.

9.        We have had to ask ourselves in the circumstances whether a prison sentence should be imposed?  I have to say that we have not found the matter easy.  Obviously offences of this kind cannot be tolerated and they would normally attract imprisonment.  After considerable thought we have concluded that because of the condition of the defendant we are able, despite the fact outlined by the police officers, to treat this as a very exceptional case and we are going in the circumstances to proceed by of individualised sentence. 

10.      We are going to sentence you in this way.  On Counts 1, 2 and 3 there will be probation for 2 years and that is on condition, of course, that you obtain treatment from the Mental Health Services, and should your use of alcohol start again a referral will be made for you to attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service on a voluntary basis for assistance.  On Count 4 using the air rifle to resist arrest we are also going to impose probation for 2 years.  All those probation orders are concurrent.  We are also going to impose an order that you carry out 180 hours' Community Service as a payment back to society for the problems which you have caused.  The sentence is going to be concurrent on all the charges.  We also order forfeiture and destruction of the air rifle and the ammunition that was seized in this case.  There will be a ban on your obtaining any weapons in the future.

Authorities

R -v- Avis and Others [1998] 1 Cr App R 420.