Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC197

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st November 2008

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Oliver Samuel Hall

Daniel Ian Woosnam

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

Oliver Samuel Hall

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count1).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The victim owed money ostensibly to Hall.  Woosnam and the victim said this was a drugs debt.  Hall, who had been sentenced a few weeks prior to the assault for dealing in Class A drugs, denied this.  Hall made a number of texts and phone calls to the victim in the days and hours preceding the assault demanding the money with menaces.  Hall and Woosnam then visited the house where they knew the victim was visiting friends.

Woosnam was highly intoxicated whereas Hall was not.  Woosnam marched into the house uninvited and corralled the victim outside where Hall was waiting for them.  Woosnam was foul mouthed, abusive and threatening, all witnessed by the occupants of the house.  These were aggravating features.  Once outside the victim was subjected to a sudden and unprovoked attack by the defendants which was started by Woosnam, who was quickly joined by Hall.  The victim was punched about the head, and once he had fallen to the ground, kicked to the head and the body.  The victim sustained two fractures to his jaw.  It was not certain which of the two defendants' blows had caused his injuries.  The defendants stopped the assault and hastily fled the scene when householders came out of their nearby houses.  The defendants were later arrested, and pleaded guilty on indictment.

In putting the grave and criminal assault charge, the Crown took account of the fact that the assault was premeditated, unprovoked, had taken the victim off guard, and that it had caused serious injuries.  Woosnam was full and frank in his co-operation with the police and appeared to express remorse.  Hall was not.  Amongst other things, Hall said that he had only punched the victim once in self defence.  This had no basis in fact.  It was accepted by both defendants that they came from privileged backgrounds, that they had had every opportunity to succeed in life, and that they had the benefit of loving and supportive families.  However, Hall explained that an unhappy adolescence had affected him, and Woosnam, who it was said was emotionally immature, gave the recent death of his grandparents as a contributory reason for his part in the assault.

Hall was in breach of a community service order and had only completed 40 hours work out of a 240 hour order.  The Court had specifically warned Hall on the earlier occasion that they were giving him a chance to turn round his life and that he would go to jail if he appeared before them again.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, residual youth, had spent 6 months on remand which was the equivalent of a 9 month sentence.

Previous Convictions:

6 previous convictions comprising 15 offences.  There were no previous convictions for violence.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Breach of Community Service Order

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 above.
Count 3:	3 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	No penalty.
Count 2:	3 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

This case had all the hallmarks of a drug debt collection.  The Court had paid particular attention to Harrison.  This was a "deliberate, unprovoked, cold blooded" assault involving blows "deliberately aimed with a substantial degree of force".  The victim had offered no provocation.  It was another aggravating feature that more than one of them had assaulted the victim.  The victim was terrified and had been permanently scarred.

The Court noted further, that the assault had taken place only a few months after Hall had been sentenced for another serious offence.  The gravity of the present offence was such that custody was inevitable.

David Ian Woosnam

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count1).

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hall above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, residual youth, had spent 6 months on remand which was the equivalent of a 9 month sentence.  Co-operation, genuine remorse and frank admission of guilt.

Previous Convictions:

8 previous convictions comprising 12 offences.  There were no previous convictions for violence.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

See Hall above.

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

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Hall.

Advocate S. M. Baker for Woosnam.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Both these defendants have pleaded guilty to a serious grave and criminal assault which amounted to a punishment beating of the victim who suffered a fractured jaw, broken in two places and other injuries.  The victim was kicked whilst he was on the ground. 

2.        The Court has examined all the relevant factors set out in the guideline case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 152 and noted that the assault was deliberately carried out, the blows were aimed and not random, the incident was committed in cold blood, the degree of force with which the blow or blows were struck were substantial, kicking was involved, more than one person was concerned in the assault and the circumstances of the attack must have been terrifying to the victim, who had offered no provocation whatsoever.  It was in short, a very nasty assault for which each defendant bears an equal responsibility.  The victim has been left permanently scarred in the sense that he will carry titanium plates in his jaw for the rest of his life. 

3.        So far as Hall is concerned, the offence was committed only a few months after he appeared before this Court, narrowly escaped a prison sentence and had been ordered to perform Community Service.  The Court has anxiously considered the background reports prepared by the Probation Service and indeed, all the matters urged very persuasively by both counsel.  We do hope and expect that both defendants will turn their lives around and will have learned as a result of this case, a very hard lesson.  Sadly, the gravity of the offence is such that we can see no justification for not imposing a custodial sentence.  The material facts seem to us to have been taken fully into account in the conclusions of the Crown Advocate. 

4.        Hall, you are sentenced on Count 1 to 2 years' imprisonment and as the Crown Advocate has moved for on 12 months' imprisonment on those offences for which you are made subject to a Community Service Order, those to be consecutive, making a total of 3 years' imprisonment.

5.        Woosnam, you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on the single Count that you face.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 152.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing.

AG v Smitton 1993/101.

AG v Mulligan 1998/199.

AG v Hall [2008] JRC 043.