Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC030

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9^th February 2007

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

David John Barrett

David Michael Cooper

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

David John Barrett

1 count of:	Affray.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 82 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.  (Count 2).

Age:  20 at the time of offending.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of Sunday 28^th May, 2006, following a verbal confrontation between Cooper and Barrett (who were 19 and 20 years old respectively) and his friends, an affray took place in the Africa House Bar (the "Bar").

Barrett and a friend, Michael Colston, shouted aggressively at Cooper who, being intimidated, held a pool cue in a defensive manner.  Barrett and Colston were escorted outside by the Manageress whilst Barrett's brother, Ryan, went to talk to Cooper.  As the Manageress returned to eject Ryan Barrett, Barrett and Colston rushed back in, throwing punches, and causing a fight to erupt.

Cooper was pushed backwards with some force and retaliated by throwing a glass which hit Colston's head causing minor injuries.  Colston was then restrained by customers.  Barrett tried to pick up a pool ball but failed as he was also being restrained.  

Cooper was removed from the general melee, and picked up a second glass which he threw hitting Ryan Barett's head and causing a minor cut.

Cooper and Ryan Barrett continued fighting violently.

Barrett who was concerned for his brother, attempted to free himself, and picked up a chair which he held above his head.  He was prevented from throwing it by customers and was restrained, along with Colston and eventually Cooper and Ryan Barrett.

Aggravating factors in this case were that both defendants were drunk, and fighting within licensed premises in the presence of numerous innocent customers.

Barrett came back in the Bar with Colston causing the fight to start and then twice tried to use weapons.  Cooper threw two glasses which could have caused very serous injuries. 

(Ryan Barrett was acquitted at trial, while Michael Colston absconded the Island).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, good employment and references, youth remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions for five offences including one against the person (common assault).

Conclusions:

Count 1:	9 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total 9 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Counts 1 and 2: 150 hours Community Service Order.

The Court said that this was a disgraceful episode which must have been frightening for bystanders but it was a spontaneous affray that did not last very long and was thus towards the lower end of the scale.

David Michael Cooper

1 count of:	Affray.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 82 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.  (Count 2).

Age:  19 at the time of the offending.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Barrett above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, previous good character, youth, student, extremely remorseful.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	15 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.

Total 15 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Counts 1 and 2: 210 hours Community Service Order.

A prison sentence is almost inevitable when glasses are involved.  In this case, glasses were "lobbed" and powerful mitigation allowed a non-custodial sentence.  Had the glass been pushed into the victim's face, imprisonment would have been certain.

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

Advocate D. Benest for Barrett.

Advocate D. Steenson for Cooper.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was a disgraceful episode.  It was clearly frightening for any bystanders, but we do accept that it was spontaneous and did not last very long.  It was not therefore an affray towards the higher end of the scale.

2.        Barrett, you and Colston were the catalyst for these events when you rushed back into the pool room and fighting broke out immediately.  Furthermore, although we accept that you never used a weapon at all, you did try to do so twice by trying to pick up a pool ball and by picking up a chair but you were restrained.  You clearly have a problem, in the past at any rate, when drinking, in controlling your temper, because you have two previous offences for public order.

3.        However, you have pleaded guilty.  You have good employment and we have read all the references.  You are a young man and we are quite satisfied that you are remorseful and that this was out of character.

4.        In the circumstances, in your case, we have decided we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  We agree that the Crown's conclusions would have been correct as to length and therefore the sentence would have been one of 9 months, but we are willing to impose Community Service in your case of 150 hours.

5.        Cooper, we accept you did not start the violence, but once you were attacked you grossly over reacted by throwing two glasses into the air which hit two other participants on the head and cut them and the injuries could, of course, have been more serious.  What had started simply as a punch-up had become something much more serious. 

6.        In your case too there is powerful mitigation, not only your guilty plea but also your previous good character, the fact that you are a student and making your way in life.  We are satisfied in your case that you are also extremely remorseful and hopefully this has been an important learning experience for you. 

7.        In your case, you are under 21 and, therefore, Article 4 applies and we must consider whether there is no alternative to custody.  We have found this a very difficult decision.  The Court has said on many occasions that the use of glass is potentially extremely dangerous, because it can cause such serious injuries and a prison sentence almost invariably follows if people use glass in public order offences, even if somebody else has started the fight in the first place.

8.        If in this case, for example, you had pushed the glass into someone's face there would be no question even with your good character and all the other mitigation; prison would be required.  We do accept there is slight difference in this case in that you lobbed two glasses into the air - it is not the same as pushing a glass in somebody's face.  As I say we find this a very finely balanced matter.  You have come as close as can be to going inside, but we have just been persuaded that there is exceptional mitigation in your case and we can treat it as an exceptional case. 

9.        We are going to say that 15 months' youth detention would have been the correct sentence, but we are going to deal with it by way of Community Service and you will serve 210 hours. 

10.      Let me say this to both of you.  You have both been very fortunate.  If there is any hesitation or lack of application in doing the community service, if you do not turn up when you are told to, if you do not work properly when you are there, then you will be reported and brought back here, and in which case you will go to prison.

No Authorities