Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC164

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th August 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Filomena Virissiml Camara

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

Age:  52.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The victim in this case, Fernanda Pinto, and the defendant were attending a Christmas party at the Hotel de France on 7^th December, 2008.  The event was organised by the Co-op, for which both women worked at the time.

There was a meal during which the defendant consumed two or three glasses of wine.  At some point between midnight and 1 00am, the defendant was on the dance floor when she fell to the ground.  She believes she was pushed.  When she looked around she believed that it was the victim who had pushed her.  The defendant then said words to the effect of "Are you crazy?" to the victim, before continuing to dance.  Pinto claims she was embarrassed by this and went to the ladies toilet where she met two friends.  After a few minutes she returned to her table to collect her belongings, intending to leave soon afterwards.

A short while later the victim walked past the defendant, who was sitting at a table, and states that Pinto called her a "bitch".  The defendant was holding a glass of wine, which she threw at Pinto who was 6 to 10 feet away.  The glass struck Pinto in the face and shattered, causing several lacerations.  Pinto retaliated by throwing a glass at the defendant which struck her on the shoulder.  Camara then picked up a piece of broken glass and threw it at Pinto causing an injury to her chest.

Following the incident the defendant turned away and walked from the room.  She felt something strike her head and realised the victim had thrown her shoe at her which caused an injury.  She then left the Hotel de France.

The victim was treated at Accident and Emergency that night.  She required 5 stitches for her facial injuries and 6 for the cuts to her chest.  She reports that she has permanent facial scarring.  The defendant was seen by the Police Doctor and found to have a laceration to the crown of her head and an abrasion to her shoulder.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse, treated as of good character, good working record, main carer for elderly mother.

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

No deportation order sought.

Compensation order in favour of the victim in the sum of £180.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

No compensation order made.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant, who is a mature lady of 53 years of previous good character, a mother and a grandmother, became involved in an incident at her work at a Christmas party in 2008, in which she assaulted the victim by throwing a glass full of wine at her with sufficient force to cause facial and chest injuries to the victim, who required five stitches to her face and six to her chest.  We are told that the victim has permanent facial scarring although we have seen no evidence of this.

2.        The defendant had two glasses of wine and a glass of champagne and was therefore merry but not drunk.  She was dancing with the victim's boyfriend who she knew from work and was pushed to the floor by, she believes, the victim.  She went back to the table and was sitting down when the victim approached her and called her a "bitch".  She reacted by throwing the glass of wine at the victim.  The victim herself then retaliated by throwing her glass at the defendant striking the defendant and causing an abrasion to her shoulder.  The defendant then threw a piece of broken glass at the victim causing the injury to her shoulder.  She then walked away and as she did the victim threw her shoe at the defendant striking and injuring the back of the defendant's head.

3.        There was a delay of some five months before the defendant was charged whilst the police took advice on whether the victim should also be charged and, as it transpires, the victim has not been charged.

4.        This is clearly a serious assault involving glass in a public place and would ordinarily attract an immediate custodial sentence.  However it was, we accept completely, out of character.  There was little deliberation and the defendant had been assaulted herself, she believed, by the victim on the dance floor and then insulted.

5.        The defendant has pleaded guilty and expressed deep regret.  It is clear from the probation report that the whole judicial process has been traumatic for her.  She has lost her job as a result of the incident and she has been assessed at a low risk of re-offending.  We have seen the many excellent references that have been produced for her and we note that she has been, in effect, a carer for others since she was fourteen.  She currently now looks after her elderly mother and her grandchildren so that her daughter can work.

6.        Mrs Pearmain accepts that 3 years is the correct starting point for an offence of this kind and urges us to reduce the Community Service hours to the equivalent of 3 months' imprisonment.  However this was a very serious assault and we must mark our disapproval of such violence.  There was simply no justification for it escalating in the way that it did. 

7.        We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.  You are sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment.

8.        We are not going to make a compensation order.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.

AG-v-Ferreira [2009] JRC 087.

AG-v-Pereira [2009] JRC 060.

AG-v-Saldana [2009] JRC 032.