Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC131

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th August 2008

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., and Jurats Le Breton and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

CB

CS

GS

RR

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

CB

First Indictment

1 count of:	Common assault.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 2).

Age:  16.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The main incident involved an attack by the four defendants on 30^th September, 2007 on a 15 year old girl who was at the time under the influence of ecstasy.  All the children were in the flat of RR's mother, who was out.  There were also other children present.  Whilst the victim was suffering from the effects of having taken the said drug, CB, CS and GS threw water and detergent over her (Count 1 - First Indictment). 

RR and GS then fed the victim sleeping tablets with the intention of making her sleep (Count 3).  CS drew on the victim's face with mascara.  When the victim became groggy, RR then shaved one of the victim's eyebrows and cut her hair.  CB shaved the other eyebrow off and cut off 10 inches of hair.  The victim received cuts to her scalp from the razor.  She later said that she was frightened during the ordeal.  Finally, CB took a can of hair mousse and used it to hit the victim several times in the face, causing an injury which bled.  (Count 2 - First Indictment).

CB then realised that she had gone too far, and together with RR, they apologised and took the victim to hospital.

The defendants were later arrested by the Police and during interview admitted their involvement, explaining that the victim had been "annoying" whilst under the influence of ecstasy.  Because other children had been present during the incident, the Police carried out intensive enquiries to ensure all those responsible were apprehended.

In the meantime, CS was arrested on 9^th October, 2007 having stolen various clothing worth £63.50 from BHS in St. Helier (Count 4 - First Indictment).  She admitted that she had taken the clothes for herself and her friend.  CS later pursued an old style committal in relation to the main offences. 

In April 2008, once the matter had been committed to the Royal Court, GS re-offended by jumping on and off the "Little Train", with others and without paying, while it was in transit through St. Helier (Count 1 - Second Indictment).  He also stole firelighters from a shop in St. Helier (Count 2 - Second Indictment) and, again with others, was involved in the lighting of various fires around the town.  He specifically lit one fire in a doorway of a house in Cattle Street (Count 3 - Second Indictment).

The provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey Law) 1994 applied to all four defendants, although because of his young age, there were limited sentencing options available in relation to GS. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty Plea, youth, remorse.

Previous Convictions:

2 previous convictions for 4 offences, including 2 previous assaults.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' Probation and 50 hours' Community Service Order.
Count 2:	12 months' Probation and 180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' Probation and 180 hours' Community Service Order.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

The Court expressed some concern that, notwithstanding the re-offending of CS and GS, the sentencing of all of the defendants had been delayed over a significant period.  The Crown's conclusions would therefore be adjusted accordingly.

Count 1:	12 months' Probation.
Count 2:	12 months' Probation and 60 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 6 weeks' youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 12 month's Probation and 60 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 6 weeks' youth detention.

CS

First Indictment

1 count of:	Common assault.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Larceny.  (Count 4).

Age:  15.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See CB above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth, care provider to alcoholic mother, remorse, delay.

Previous Convictions:

1 previous conviction for 4 offences, including 2 offences of dishonesty.  Instant offending put her in breach of Youth Court Binding over Order.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' Probation and 50 hours' Community Service Order.
Count 4:	12 months' Probation, concurrent and 70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Breach of Binding Over Order: 70 hours' Community Service, consecutive.

Total: 12 months' Probation and 120 hours' Community Service Order.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See CB above.

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' Probation.
Count 4:	12 months' Probation.

Breach of Binding Over Order: 12 months' Probation.

Total: 12 month's Probation.

GS

First Indictment

1 count of:	Common assault.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).

Second Indictment

1 count of:	Getting on to a motor vehicle otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause, contrary to Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Larceny.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Lighting a fire on a road, contrary to Article 2(1)(k) of the Policing of Roads (Jersey) Regulations 1959.  (Count 3).

Age:  13.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See CB above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth.

Previous Convictions:

2 previous convictions for 10 offences.  Instant offending put him in breach of Youth Court Binding Over Order.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' Probation.
Count 3:	12 months' Probation.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' Probation.
Count 2:	12 months' Probation.
Count 3:	12 months' Probation.

Breach of Bind Over Order: Order revoked with no extra penalty.

Total: 12 months' Probation.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See CB above.

Conclusions granted.

RR

First Indictment

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).

Age:  14.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See CB above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth, remorse, offer of professional hair re-styling to victim.

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 2:	12 months' Probation and 120 hours' Community Service Order.
Count 3:	12 months' Probation and 70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' Probation and 120 hours' Community Service Order.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See CB above.

First Indictment

Count 2:	12 months' Probation and 40 hours' Community Service Order.
Count 3:	12 months' Probation.

Total: 12 month's Probation and 40 hours' Community Service Order.

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

Advocate O. A. Blakeley for CB.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for CS.

Advocate E. J. Le Guillou for GS.

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for RR.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The victim met up with the defendants and others on the evening of the 29^th September.  She was under the influence of ecstasy.  At around 11 o'clock they returned to RR's flat, the victim began to hallucinate and behave in an odd manner which irritated her friends.  The defendants and others threw water, fairy liquid and hair mousse at the victim RR and GS gave her three sleeping tablets to calm her down.  As she became groggy RR started to shave off one of her eyebrows with a plastic razor.  She managed only half when CB took over and shaved off the rest and the other eyebrow.  CB then shaved off some of the victim's hair, making a large triangular patch on her forehead CB then cut off over 10 inches of the victim's hair at the back.  Whilst this was happening CS drew on the victim's face with mascara.  Finally CB took a can of hair mousse and hit the victim on the head.  She also scratched the victim's face with her nails.  CB only stopped when the victim's head began to bleed and she realised that she had gone too far.  However, CB and RR did then take the victim down to the Accident and Emergency Department where, certainly CB, apologised and said and acknowledged that she had gone too far.

2.        The defendants are all very young.  At the time of the offences CB was 15, RR was 14, CS 14 and GS 12.  Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to all four defendants and with GS in particular the sentencing options are limited.

3.        The incident represents a particularly cowardly form of bullying of a helpless victim who had done nothing other than to irritate her friends.  All of the defendants, but in particular CB and RR, should be, and we accept are, deeply ashamed.

4.        Before going to mitigation we would like to comment on the delay that has occurred in this case.  The assault with which we are principally concerned took place on the 30^th September, 2007, which is not far off a year ago.  What seems to have occurred is that CS and GS, who played a lesser role in the assault, subsequently, and separately, became involved in quite unconnected offending and each time that occurred the progress of this case was held back, with the intention, presumably, of trying to ensure that all of the offending of the defendants came before the Court on one occasion.  Whilst we can appreciate the general desirability of ensuring that the Court deals with all of the offending in one sitting, the consequences here are that all of the defendants have had to wait for a period of time which is just unacceptable.  This is particularly the case when one bears in mind their age and what a year represents in the life of somebody aged between 12 and 15.  In our view the Prosecution are responsible for ensuring that cases involving such young defendants are dealt with expeditiously and must exercise their judgment over whether unrelated offending should be permitted to delay the progress of a case.  In view of the delay that has occurred here, we will be reducing the conclusions sought by the Crown.

5.        In terms of mitigation, starting with CB, you, of course, are the eldest defendant and arguably your conduct is the most serious.  You have pleaded guilty and whilst you have previous convictions for assault, you have expressed remorse and you accepted that clearly this prank had gone too far.  What has impressed us the most is that you and RR did take the victim down to the hospital.  We have read the background reports and we are very encouraged by the change for the better that has taken place in your life.

6.        RR, you have pleaded guilty and you too have expressed remorse, and as I have said we are impressed by the fact that you took the victim down to the hospital.  You of course have no previous convictions.

7.        CS, you have pleaded guilty and you have only one previous conviction.  We note that, in fact, you have already served 4 weeks in custody as a result of this case, and we have heard the evidence of the Probation Officer that you are now showing signs of maturity and that your absconding rate has greatly reduced, which we applaud.  We have also noted your letter to the victim which has impressed us.

8.        GS you are the youngest.  You have pleaded guilty.  You do have a very bad record for somebody of your age, but in your case the sentencing options before us are very limited. 

9.        Article 3(5) of the Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001 provides that we must state the sentence of youth detention that we are considering before passing a sentence of community service instead.  The Crown invites us to agree that in the case of CB the grave and criminal assault offence would attract a sentence of 12 months' youth detention, which is the equivalent of 180 hours' community service.  In the case of RR the Crown invite us to accept that a sentence of 6 months' youth detention, or 120 hours' community service would be appropriate.  We have to say that in our view, notwithstanding the very unpleasant nature of this offence, such sentences would be manifestly excessive for defendants of this age.  The grave and criminal assault must be punished, but in our view the sentence which we would consider for CB is 1½ months' youth detention, which equates to 60 hours' community service, and in the case of RR we would consider a sentence of 1 week's youth detention, which equates to 40 hours' community service.  On the facts of this case we would not be considering youth detention at all for the common assault.  In the case of CS we would not consider imposing a sentence of youth detention for either the larceny or the breach of the binding over order, but we have of course noted that she has already spent 4 weeks in custody.

10.      The sentences which we impose, therefore, are as follows.  CB, on Count 1 of the First Indictment you will serve a sentence of 12 months' probation, on Count 2 of the First Indictment you will serve 12 months' probation and 60 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 6 weeks' youth detention.  Therefore you will serve a total of 60 hours' community service and 12 months' probation.

11.      RR, on Count 2 of the First Indictment you will be sentence to 12 months' probation and 40 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 1 week's youth detention, on Count 3 you will be sentenced to 12 months' probation.  That equates to a total of 40 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 1 week's youth detention, and 12 months' probation.

12.      CS, on Count 1 of the First Indictment you are sentenced to 12 months' probation; Count 4 of the First Indictment 12 months' probation; and on the breach of the binding over order 12 months' probation.  That makes a total sentence of 12 months' probation.

13.      GS, on Count 3 of the First Indictment you are sentenced to 12 months' probation; on Count 1 of the Second Indictment you are sentenced to 12 months' probation; Count 2 of the Second Indictment you are sentence to 12 months' probation; Count 3 of the Second Indictment you are sentenced to 12 months' probation.  The binding over order is revoked.  That makes a total in you case of 12 months' probation.

14.      In relation to all of the probation orders, the Court notes the programmes recommended in the Social Enquiry Reports which, subject of course to the overall supervision of the Probation Officer, all of you will be expected to attend.

15.      I must give all four of you a very severe warning that if you breach any of the terms of the probation orders, or if you do not comply with the instructions of the Probation Officers, you will be returned to this Court where you will almost certainly be sentenced to youth detention where that is applicable.

16.      Turning to the issue of security, this is not a case, in our view, where we should seek to order security.  In relation to RR and CB they have, in fact, both been of good behaviour for nearly a year now and in the case of RR this is her first offence.  Secondly, it is clear that efforts have been made by both RR and CB and their mothers in order to avoid further re-offending occurring, and we recognise that.  Finally the mothers simply do not have the means to make any kind of meaningful payment.  In relation to the Minister as guardian of CS and GS, we note in the reports the very considerable efforts made by the Children's Services over a long period of time and therefore on the facts of this case we do not wish to seek security from the Minister.  But we agree with the Prosecution that as a matter of principle there is no reason why security should not be ordered against him in an appropriate case.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.

Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.