Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC162

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th August 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Jonathan Dean Egan

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused approached a plain clothed police officer outside the Royal Yacht Hotel and offered to supply him with cocaine and 10 tablets of MDMA (Ecstasy) which he claimed to have secreted in his rectum (Counts 1 and 2).  A subsequent medical examination proved negative.  Whilst in custody at Police Headquarters under observation the accused threw a cup of warm urine into the face of a woman police officer (Count 3).

The accused gave a no comment interview under caution.  In the reports prepared for the sentencing occasion it became apparent he had been short of money.  He had intended to dupe members of the public into giving him money for drugs then disappear.

For the purposes of sentencing the Crown proceeded on the basis this was not a drug trafficking case.  Bonnar did not therefore apply and the Crown did not take a trafficking starting point.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (although not entered at the earliest opportunity).  Remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Appalling criminal record containing principally dishonesty related offences.  The record included a conviction in 1998 for possession of cannabis resin and convictions for assaults on the police.

Conclusions:

Total:  1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The facts of the case were unusual.

The accused approached a plain clothed police officer and offered to supply him with MDMA which he said was secreted internally.

Not surprisingly he was arrested.  He was taken to Police Headquarters where he was initially calm.  He later became disruptive and spat at officers.

Whilst at Police Headquarters the accused urinated into a cup and threw the urine at a woman police constable.  The urine hit her straight on.  Her eyes became sore as a result of the acidic quality of the urine and she had to undergo a saline wash.  The risk of possible infection had caused her concern.  The Court had read her victim impact statement.  This was a disgusting assault.

The Crown accepted there had in fact been no drugs.  The accused had been attempting to raise money.

The accused was aged 28.  He had a heavy drink and drugs habit.  He lived an itinerant lifestyle.  His record was bad.  The psychiatrist had recorded there were no psychiatric risks.

The Crown had sensibly decided not to treat this as a drug trafficking matter.

The accused had now expressed remorse in relation to both charges.  He had chosen to reserve his pleas before the Magistrate's Court.

In the Court's view the Crown's conclusions were correct.  The Court wished to reiterate what had been said in Letchford namely, the Court takes very seriously assaults on police.  The police are entitled to the protection of the Court in going about their difficult job.

Conclusions granted.

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The facts of this case are unusual.  The defendant approached a plain clothes police officer outside the Royal Yacht Hotel and asked him if he wanted any "MDMA" which he said he had secreted internally and could go to the toilet to retrieve.  Needless to say he was arrested.  At the Police Station he was initially calm and rational but his demeanour became aggressive and obstructive.  He repeatedly spat at the walls and floor of the cells and then at the officers.  He then urinated into a cup which he threw at a female police officer, which caught her head on, going over her eyes, face and upper clothing and contaminating her body armour.  The urine caused the police officer's eyes to be sore because if its acidic quality and they had to be washed out with a saline solution by the Police Doctor.  The possibility of infection, now removed, has understandably caused her concern.  We have read her impact statement and it needs little imagination to appreciate the disgusting and violating nature of this assault.

2.        No drugs were found on the defendant after an examination and none were found in his accommodation.  The prosecution accept therefore, that he had none and in reality, was apparently attempting to raise money.

3.        The defendant is 28, single and unemployed with a history of illicit drug-taking, heavy drinking and mental health problems.  Mr Gafoor describes him as someone with an itinerant lifestyle with few stable social relationships.  He has a bad record and his criminality occurs in spite of his alcohol and drug use.  He has been assessed by Dr Hendricks and is not currently suffering from any escalating psychiatric risks.  The Crown have sensibly decided not to treat this as a drug trafficking case

4.        In terms of mitigation, Mr Jones has presented a letter from the defendant expressing remorse for the assault and in Court we are told that he is now also remorseful for the drugs offence.  He has pleaded guilty on Indictment although he did reserve his plea in the Magistrate's Court.

5.        We have taken the mitigation into account and, notwithstanding, regard the conclusions of the Crown as correct.  We reiterate what the then Deputy Bailiff said in the case of AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A that the Court takes very seriously any assault on a police officer doing his or her duty.  Police officers are entitled to look to the Court for protection in the difficult task which they undertake.

6.        On count 2 you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, on count 3 you are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive, that is a total of 1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A.

Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626.

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

Blackstone's Criminal Practice (2008 edition).

Archbold (Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2009 edition).