Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC032

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th February 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Kamil Patrick Saldana

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was in a nightclub.  The victim annoyed him by repeatedly touching him.  The defendant alleged that the victim then insulted his mother.  The defendant lost control and struck the victim with his right hand in which he was holding a glass.  The glass broke and caused a cut to the victim's ear which required gluing.  There was no lasting injury.

Details of Mitigation:

First offence.  Pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.  Co-operative, good work record, good character, low risk of re-offending and remorseful.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 9 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court considered that Saldana had not intended to use the glass as a weapon and the incident had occurred in a momentary loss of temper.  There was sufficient mitigation to see this as an exceptional case.

The Court ordered Saldana to complete 180 hours' Community Service equivalent to 12 months' custody.

Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order.

S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate E. J. Le Guillou for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Court accepts that you were the subject of provocation, both physical and verbal, on the night in question, but that was no excuse for punching the victim in the face when you had a half pint glass in your hand.  As the Bailiff said in the case of AG-v-Saville [2007] JRC 110 it is so easy, in those circumstances, to cause injuries which mark a person for life or cause the loss of an eye.  You were lucky that in this case the injuries sustained by the victim were superficial and the cuts have healed.

2.        The Court does accept that this was a momentary loss of temper on your part caused by the provocation and that you did not intend a glassing as such.  Nevertheless the Court has said previously, and we agree, that such an offence almost invariably leads to a prison sentence.

3.        Miss Le Guillou has spoken strongly on your behalf.  She has pointed out that you pleaded guilty immediately, you admitted things to the police, you were entirely cooperative with them, you waited for them to arrive and you pleaded guilty in court at the first opportunity.  That stands you in very good stead.  You have no previous convictions of any sort; more than that you clearly have a very good character, you have a good work record and we have read the many references in support.  It is clear from the Probation Report that you are extremely remorseful at what happened and you are assessed as being at low risk of re-offending. 

4.        We have asked ourselves whether this is one of those exceptional cases where we can impose a non-custodial sentence.  We have been persuaded that, taking account of all the mitigation that appears on the papers before us, we can just do so.

5.        The sentence of the Court is that you undertake 180 hours' of Community Service.  We say that the alternative sentence we had in mind was one of 12 months.  We understand why the Crown moved for 9 months but we think that if a prison sentence is to be imposed for a glassing, 12 months is the minimum that would be appropriate.  Now you must understand that if you do not carry out the Community Service or if you re-offend you will be brought back here and then you will almost certainly be sent to prison.  So you must attend punctually when told to attend for work and you must work hard whilst you are carrying out Community Service.  We hope very much that we will never see you in the Court again.

Authorities

AG-v-Saville [2007] JRC 110.

AG-v-Taylor [2007] JRC 007.

AG-v-Rodrigues [2007] JRC 185.