Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC112

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th June 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Joseph Couillard

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

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Following an earlier altercation with the first victim in a nightclub, the defendant made concerted efforts to track his victim down, including phoning his mobile and telling him he wanted a "one to one" with him.  In the early hours the first victim and a friend were walking home along St Aubin's inner road when the defendant passed them in his friend's car.  The defendant told his friend to turn the car round and stop.  The defendant got out of the car, armed himself with a 6 inch serrated plasterboard saw from the boot of the car and chased the first victim and his friend, brandishing it at them.  Both victims escaped but the defendant got back in the car and tracked them down, again confronting them, this time through the car window.  A passer by called the police using the 999 system and when the police arrived, the defendant's car drove off at speed.  Both victims, young men of the defendant's age group, were terrified and believed they would be stabbed if the defendant caught them.

Aggravating features: a terrifying experience for the victims, committed in a public street.  The defendant actively sought out a confrontation, armed himself with a weapon and terrorised his victims with it.  The victims feared for their safety, believing they would be stabbed if he caught them.  The defendant had a previous conviction for violence, the sentence for which he had only just completed when he re-offended.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea to affray at the earliest opportunity, relative youth and 4 months without further incident since the offence.

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction for grave and criminal assault.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court observed for the purposes of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified, and that no other sentencing option was appropriate since the defendant had shown himself unwilling to respond to community service order by re-offending so soon after completing that sentence.

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for an affray.  The events in question were preceded by a confrontation in a nightclub for which it is possible that the victim bears some responsibility.  What happened in the nightclub, however, was followed by very determined efforts by the defendant to seek out the victim which culminated in his chasing the young man and his friend while brandishing a saw with a six inch serrated blade.  The victim was terrified.  The defendant initially lied about the nature of the weapon but when he was confronted by the police with the saw in question he admitted that this was the weapon that he had used. 

2.        The social enquiry report has recommended that the Court should impose a community service order but we cannot ignore the fact that there is a previous conviction for grave and criminal assault for which the defendant was sentenced to 150 hours' community service, the equivalent of 9 months' detention.  Yet this offence was committed within weeks of his completing the community service order. 

3.        As the Court has said on many other occasions, acts of grave violence on the streets of the town will not be tolerated by this Court and will in general attract custodial sentences.  Affray is a serious offence involving terror or fear to members of the public; indeed it was a member of the public who called the police on this occasion because he had witnessed the alarming spectacle which we have described.

4.        In mitigation we have taken into account the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty and shown some remorse by apologising to the victim.  We take into account the youth of the defendant and all the matters set out in the report of the psychologist.  The defendant is also fortunate to have the support of his family.  We have noted some excellent references which have been placed before us. 

5.        At the end of the day, however, the defendant is responsible for his actions and he must be punished for this serious offence which he has committed.  We have taken into account our duty under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 which prevents us from imposing a custodial sentence unless the Court is satisfied that no other sentence can properly be imposed.  We consider that the statutory test is satisfied by reason both of the fact that this offence is too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence and because the defendant has failed previously to respond to a non-custodial sentence by offending after being sentenced to a community service order.

6.        Couillard, the Court has to punish you as we have explained for this offence.  The conclusions of the Crown Advocate seem to us to be fair and correct and they are granted and you are accordingly sentenced to 9 months' youth detention.  I have to tell you that at the conclusion of your sentence you will be liable to supervision by a probation officer or some other official.

Authorities

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