Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC219

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th December 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Zbigniew Jerzyk Krawczyk

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Defendant, aged 34, committed two grave and criminal assaults upon the same victim within the space of 5 weeks.  In the first he punched the victim in the face causing extensive bruising and a suspected fracture of the maxillary bone.  The second assault took place at the victim's flat where both men had been drinking heavily.  Both were drunk.  Following a demand by the victim for repayment of a loan and a threat to report the defendant to the police for the earlier assault, the defendant reached across from where he was sitting, took an 8 inch serrated kitchen knife from a work top and plunged it into the victim's upper left chest as he sat on his bed.  The knife penetrated to a depth of 12 centimetres, narrowly missing a major artery, lungs and heart.  Had the artery been cut or the heart damaged the injury would have been life threatening.  The defendant then withdrew the knife, left it on the bed and walked out of the bedsit.  He made no effort to help his victim or summon an ambulance.  The next morning the wound had clotted and the victim was able to go to the hospital, where he spent 2 days undergoing surgery to repair damage to a minor artery. 

The Social Enquiry Report suggested the defendant showed no genuine remorse and posed a medium to high risk of re-offending.

Aggravating features, (applying Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111):- (a) use of a potentially lethal weapon, (b) a stab to a part of the body in which the risk of serious injury or worse was obvious, (c) the blow was administered with sufficient force to penetrate to a depth of 12 cms, (d) the lack of anything which could properly be called provocation, (e) though the resulting injury was mercifully not serious, this was no thanks to the defendant, who showed a wholesale disregard for the well being and life of his victim, (g) the stabbing was the second serious assault on the same victim within a space of a few weeks, (h) no effort was made to render assistance or summon medical help.

Personal aggravating features:- (a) assessed as medium to high risk of re-offending, (b) his comment to the probation officer that he stabbed his victim instinctively and could not rule out the possibility of a recurrence.

Details of Mitigation:

Mitigating features of the offence:- (a) occurred on the spur of the moment, without apparent foresight or deliberation, (b) the knife was readily to hand - it was not a case of the defendant going in search of a weapon or arriving pre-armed, (c) the attack was not followed through - after a single stab the defendant desisted.

Personal mitigation:- (a) guilty plea to the stabbing at the earliest opportunity, (b) guilty plea to the punching, albeit only shortly before a trial for attempted murder which, in light of the pleas finally offered, the Crown did not pursue, (c) though the defendant had a previous conviction in Poland for larceny, the stabbing represented a degree of violence not previously shown by him.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Following trial the defendant might have expected to receive a sentence in the order of 18 months on Count 1 and 8 years on Count 3 consecutive, making a total of 9½ years.

Total: 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation made.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of grave and criminal assault against the same victim, a fellow Pole who had shared lodgings with him in the past.  The first assault took place on Christmas Day 2007 when the defendant struck a hard blow to the face of the victim causing severe bruising.  The second assault occurred five weeks later when the defendant plunged a long bladed kitchen knife into the chest of the victim to a depth of 12 centimetres narrowly missing important organs and arteries.  He left the victim on his own overnight and it was only the following morning that the victim felt strong enough to make his way to the Hospital for treatment.  On the second occasion the defendant had been drinking heavily and, when arrested, he at first denied any responsibility for the offence.  It is of the greatest good fortune that the victim was not killed. 

2.        Counsel for the defendant criticised the Crown's summary of facts but we are not satisfied that it was inaccurate to any material degree.  For the avoidance of any possible sense of grievance on the part of the defendant, we will however make it clear that we have relied for the factual basis of sentencing on the defendant's basis of plea approved by his counsel and signed by him. 

3.        The Court has been referred by the Crown Advocate to the guideline case of Harrison -v-AG [2004] JLR 111 and we have taken into account all the material aggravating features of both offences, as helpfully outlined in the Crown Advocate's summary.  We also take into account the fact that the attack occurred on the spur of the moment without deliberation, that the weapon was readily to hand and that the attack was not followed through.  The defendant administered a single stabbing blow and then left.

4.        In mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty to the two offences, albeit that the guilty plea to count 1 came late in the day.  The guilty plea on count 3 on the other hand was entered at an early stage.  The Social Enquiry report shows that the defendant had a difficult upbringing, his father was an alcoholic and his mother died when he was only 14.  His brother, to whom he was close, was murdered three years ago which led the defendant to start drinking to excess.  He has shown some remorse but continues to attribute some responsibility for what happened to the victim.  He is assessed as being of medium to high risk of re-offending.  He has never before committed an offence of the nature of that set out in count 3.  We have taken account of all the authorities to which we have been referred and all the submissions by counsel for the defendant. 

5.        We are prepared to reduce slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.  We think that the appropriate sentence on the more serious offence in Count 3 is one of 5 years' imprisonment.  We will reduce the sentence on Count 1 to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 5½ years' imprisonment.  We dismiss Count 2 on the Indictment which is the Count of attempted murder.

6.        We turn to the question of deportation.  The Crown Advocate has submitted that the two considerations which we have to take into account are made out and that we should recommend deportation.  The defendant is a Polish national who has been in the Island for 3 years or so, he has committed a very serious crime and is assessed as being of medium to high risk of re-offending.  We have no hesitation in concluding that his continued presence in the Island would be detrimental to the public interest.  There are no human rights factors arising which would cause us not to recommend deportation.  We will accordingly recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that the defendant be deported from the Island at the conclusion of his sentence.

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.