Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC188

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th December 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Adam Duncan Baldwin

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

Age:  22

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

He and two friends got into an altercation with the victim and his friend, all of whom had been drinking, late one Friday evening on the Esplanade.  Unclear who started it.  Defendant picked up a six foot long plastic road barrier and threw it at the victim (a 40 year old man) with 'appreciable force' from a distance of about 6 feet.  The end of the barrier struck the victim in the face, knocking him to the floor, and causing a laceration from his top left cheek to the top lip which required multiple stitches.  This wound would leave a permanent scar and probably cause lifelong disfigurement.  The victim also sustained a cut to the back of his head, broke his leg in the fall, and was knocked unconscious.  The defendant ran from the scene and was identified from CCTV footage and arrested two days later.

Details of Mitigation:

After initial denials, he admitted the offence in interview saying that he had thrown the barrier 'at' the victim from about 6 feet away.  He said he had 'seen red' because the victim had pushed his friend.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, expressed genuine remorse and accepted full responsibility for his actions.

Previous Convictions:

Grave and criminal assault; common assault (2002).

Conclusions:

Victim compensation.

In the event of a non-custodial sentence, seeks an order under Article 3 Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998, prohibited from entering licensed premises for 12 months save for 6^th Category Licence under Article 2 Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.  

The Crown invited the Court to sentence on the basis that the defendant intended the barrier should hit the victim, but the evidence was too vague to suggest he had intentionally aimed it at the victim's face.  Had there been evidence to show that, the Crown would have moved for a longer sentence.  The Crown invited sentence on the basis that the defendant must have intended to cause some harm or was reckless in that regard, but did not specifically intend to cause injuries of the severity which in fact resulted.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court wishes to express its frustration at what appears to be the tolerance of the authorities in this Island to excessive drunkenness in public places.  Every weekend dozens, if not scores, of people are to be found on the streets of the town in states of advanced intoxication.  Yet they do not appear to be prosecuted, nor it seems to us, are sufficient efforts made to identify and punish licensees who allow this offensive drunkenness to take place. 

2.        The results are inevitably violent encounters which occasionally end, as here, in tragedy.  One man has been seriously scarred indeed disfigured for life, another, the defendant, finds himself indicted for a serious offence which is likely to affect his life too. 

3.        This defendant is to be sentenced for a grave and criminal assault.  Both he and the victim, and others involved in the scuffle, were drunk.  The defendant states that he was grossly intoxicated although he was by no means incapable.

4.        The assault was a very serious one involving the throwing of a plastic traffic barrier at short range.  It caused a grave wound to the victim's face, which has caused scarring and permanent disfigurement.  The victim was knocked backwards and left unconscious on the ground while the defendant and his friends left the scene.

5.        The defendant was arrested two days later.  He has one previous conviction for grave and criminal assault, 4 years ago, for which he was given a sentence of community service. 

6.        The evidence shows that the barrier was thrown with considerable force, and the defendant must have intended to cause some injury.  Although the Crown accepts that he did not intend to cause injuries of the severity that in fact resulted, the defendant is in some ways lucky that even more serious injuries did not result, in that the victim hit his head on falling backwards.

7.        Counsel for the defendant addressed us on the relevant factors in the guideline case of Harrison -v- AG [2004] JCA 046 and we have taken all those matters into consideration.  There is much to be said in mitigation.  The defendant is a young man and pleaded guilty at the earliest possible stage.  He has expressed great remorse and has sought to apologise to the victim for the hurt that he has caused.  His actions on the night were spontaneous, perhaps out of misguided loyalty to his friends.  He has a good employment record.   But for his tendency to drink to excess he is a responsible member of the community.  A number of impressive references have been placed before us.  It is a matter of great sadness that he should find himself in this position. 

8.        We have given anxious consideration to the possibility of imposing a non-custodial sentence.  We think however, that drunken violence of this kind must attract a custodial sentence so as to make it clear to others that the Court will not tolerate this kind of behaviour on the streets of St Helier.

9.        The Crown Advocate has given, in our judgment, as much weight as could possibly and properly be given to the mitigating factors.  The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Harrison -v- AG [2004] JCA 046.