Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC196

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

12^th October 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Tibbo, Clapham, King, Le Cornu and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Glenn Mark Picot

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th September, 2009, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Attempted robbery (Count 1).
1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1.

Picot entered La Collette Stores where he selected two bottles of wine from the refrigeration cabinet and smashed them together leaving him with the broken bottle necks.  He approached the cashier counter and demanded that the cashier open the till.  He repeated this demand on a number of occasions.  He knocked the till to the floor and kicked the till a number of times.  He exchanged words with a young male and another female shopper.  All of those in attendance were terrified by the incident.  When asked by a member of the public to leave he had calmly left and waited outside for the police who had been summoned to arrest him.  When interviewed he claimed that he had been told to go to the shop initially by a "bad frog" in his head who had told him to go and buy lemonade bottles and lighter fuel so as to make petrol bombs to throw at police cars.  When he arrived at the shop the "bad frog" had told him to rob the shop.  When the shop assistant had shouted for someone to call the police he had handed over his mobile phone for the purpose because he had been told to do it by the "good frog".  No property was taken. 

Count 2.

Whilst on remand for the Count 1 offence he made enquiries of a prison officer as to whether a new inmate was in prison for sex offences.  Having been categorically advised by the prison officer that the new inmate was not in for sex offences but was in for motoring offences, Picot returned to his cell where he had boiled a kettle and he had then returned upstairs to the common area where the new inmate was on the telephone and had thrown the contents of the boiling kettle over the man's face, neck and shoulders.  In interview under caution he admitted that he had committed this act but claimed that he had been told to do so by "President Nabolu of Sudimarshia".  He had thrown the contents of the kettle over the other inmate because he had been told that he was a sex offender.  He expressed no regret or remorse for his action. 

Details of Mitigation:

Count 1.  The Crown had taken a "starting point" of 4 years imprisonment.  In terms of mitigation he had his guilty plea, albeit he was not deserving of the full one third reduction given that the incident had largely been caught on CCTV and supported by the witness statements.  He had minimal residual credit for youth.  He did not have the benefit of good character.  He had expressed remorse and regret for putting in fear the shop assistant and the other members of the public.  A psychiatric report was made available which confirmed that whilst there was no evidence of an ongoing mental illness he did have a number of borderline personality disorder traits.  In reaching its conclusions the Crown had had regard to the totality principle. 

Count 2.  The Crown had taken a "starting point" of 5 years imprisonment.  In terms of mitigation there was a guilty plea, but again not deserving of a full one third customary reduction.  Co-operative in interview but expressed no remose or regret for his actions or of the consequences upon the victim.  Limited residual credit for youth but no good character.  The contents of the psychiatric report had again been noted.  Regard had been had to the totality principle.

The defence claimed that the total sentence sought was too high and that insufficient credit had been given to the available mitigation.  It contended that the guilty pleas warranted the full one third customary reduction.  No actual violence used in the attempted robbery.  No money or other property taken from the shop.  He calmed down when asked by a member of the public and waited for the police to arrest him.  Given his mental state suggested that his actions amounted to a "cry for help".  Had remorse and had written letters of apology to the shop assistant.  The defence accepted that the "starting point" was correct in principle but greater allowance should be made for the available mitigation. 

In relation to the grave and criminal assault etc.  It was an unpleasant offence with an element of premeditation.  He again acted upon the voices that he claimed to hear.  Suggested that the "starting point" of the Crown was too high and it should have been 4½ years.  Again, greater allowance should have been provided for the mitigation in particular a full one third deduction for the guilty plea.  He was a damaged young man.  His fiancée who was in Court remained supportive of him.  He was doing something positive with his time in prison.  Having regard to the totality principle a sentence sought of 6½ years was too great.  Appropriate sentence should not exceed 5 years in total. 

Previous Convictions:

12 convictions for 25 offences including larceny of dwelling, larceny as a servant, illegal entry, breaking and entry, malicious damage, possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, concerned in the supply of a controlled Class A drug, shoplifting, battery and public order offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  6½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant pleaded guilty to two serious offences of attempted robbery and grave and criminal assault.  In the first case he had smashed two wine bottles and threatened a cashier.  She bravely pushed the defendant away.  The till was pushed to the floor and he kicked it several times.  He had knocked stock to the floor.  He had left the premises and waited for the police.  The Court agreed with the Crown's assessment of the bravery of the shop assistant, Miss Martins, and the member of the public, Miss Rodrigues, and both of them were commended by the Court for their bravery. 

In relation to the grave and criminal assault the defendant had got it into his head that the inmate was in for sex offences.  He had boiled the kettle in his room and then had gone to the pool room and had thrown the contents over the head, neck and shoulders of the other inmate.  The victim had gone into shock and had been admitted to hospital.  The inmate's face was red and the area from the shoulders to the nipple level were burned.  From the updated medical reports/photographs it was clear that the victim's healing had been remarkable.  He had been left with a scar which was more serious and which could not be exposed to sunlight and there may be certain curtailment of his future job choices in consequence of his injuries. 

The defendant claimed he had acted on voices and he had a psychiatric history since the age of 15.  The Doctor had described anti-social borderline traits.  However, he was fit to plead and the traits did not have a substantial effect upon his criminal responsibility. The defendant was aged 28 and not of good character and he declined to co-operate in the preparation of the Social Enquiry Report.  The Crown had divided the sentences as to being 3 years for the attempted robbery and 3½ years for the grave and criminal assault making a total of 6½ years.  The Court disagreed with the Crown's assessment of the likely "starting point" for grave and criminal assault and had regard to the English authorities and the Royal Court considered that a more appropriate "starting point" would have been one of 6 years' imprisonment.  The Court had taken into account all of the circumstances of the offences and all the available mitigation but agreed that the Crown's conclusions were correct.  However, the Court, by a majority felt that greater regard had to be given to the totality principle.  Therefore, by way of a majority the Court was reducing the sentences accordingly. 

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  5½ years' imprisonment.

The Court expressed the view that it hoped that the defendant, who had complex problems, would work with the authorities.  The Court also urged the prison authorities to maintain work with the defendant and have regard to the recommendations of the Doctor's report.  He Court gave authority for the report to be disclosed to the prison authorities. 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. D. Field for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant has pleaded guilty to two serious offences.  Firstly attempted robbery at La Collette Stores and secondly, a grave and criminal assault on a fellow prison inmate.  In the first case, he smashed two wine bottles, approached the cashier and pointing the neck of one of the bottles, told her to open the till.  He then swept stock from shelves to the floor before threatening her again.  The cashier screamed for other customers to call the police and bravely used a broom to push the defendant away.  He actually offered her his mobile to enable her to call the police.  He then swept the till to the floor where he kicked and stamped upon it.  He then said "I am not well" and was shepherded out of the shop where he stood awaiting the arrival of the police, and when they arrived he said "arrest me I am mentally unstable".

2.        We have read the impact statement of Miss Martins, the cashier at the shop, and we would like to commend her, as do the Crown, for her courage and bravery in this incident which must have been very frightening for her, and indeed the courage and bravery of the other person in the shop, Miss Rodrigues.

3.        In the second case, whilst in custody the defendant got it into his head that a fellow prisoner was there for sexual offences, despite being told categorically that he was there for driving offences.  He boiled a kettle in his cell and walked with the kettle to the pool table where the fellow prisoner was using the phone and then threw it over his face and upper body causing him to scream in pain.  The victim was taken immediately to a shower to cool the burns down, and beginning to suffer from shock, was taken to hospital.  The whole of his face was burnt and his eyes were red although thankfully his eyesight was not affected.  His neck and the top half of his chest from shoulder to shoulder down to nipple level was burnt.  We have read the medical reports and seen the photos and it is clear that the victim's healing has been remarkable.  He has minimal scarring on his face which will apparently improve with time.  The scarring on his chest is more obvious and there will always be an area of skin which may not regain its normal pigmentation and cannot therefore be safely exposed to the sun.  This area is more at risk of irritation from chemicals and pressure and may limit the victim or curtail his future job choices.

4.        The defendant admitted the assault saying he had been obeying a voice (namely that of a President Nabolu of Sudimarshia).  As can be gathered, the defendant has a psychiatric history and has been in contact with the psychiatric services since the age of fifteen.  He has been diagnosed by Dr Dillon as having significant personality traits which would amount to a disorder including antisocial borderline emotionally unstable, as defined within the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Disorder (DSM IV). 

5.        In her report Dr Dillon, whilst accepting that it is ultimately a matter for the Jurats, expresses the opinion that the defendant is able to fulfil all of the components of the test laid down in AG-v-O'Driscoll 1992/200 in terms of his fitness to plead and that this disorder does not impact on any one part such as to render him unfit to plead.  Counsel for the prosecution and the defence accept that, as do we, and therefore we will not adjourn the case to enable the Superior Number to decide that issue pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law 1964.  Dr Dillon has also expressed the opinion that the disorder would not have substantially affected his criminal responsibility, applying the test laid down in Prior-v-AG [2002] JLR 11.  The issue on the defendant's criminal responsibility at the time of the offences is not raised by the defence. 

6.        The defendant is 28 and is not of good character.  The social enquiry report is limited in scope as he has declined to co-operate. 

7.        The Crown seek consecutive sentences of 3 years for the attempted robbery and 3½ years for the grave and criminal assault, giving rise to a total sentence of 6½ years.  We think there are grounds for regarding the sentence of 3½ years for the grave and criminal assault as too lenient, having regard in particular to the Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 2000) (George Hales 2001) Cr. App. R. 92, where the English Court of Appeal held that 6 years was appropriate following a trial for a case involving the pouring of scalding water from a kettle down a woman's back and shoulders and not as here, over the face.  A sentence of 6 years was upheld for a similar offence following a trial in R-v-Mason [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 

8.        However, we take into account the particular and perhaps unusual circumstances of this defendant and we agree with the conclusions of the Crown as to the individual sentences to be imposed on each of these offences.  Both were serious and in doing so we have considered all of the mitigation that has been put forward by Mrs Field, the guilty pleas, the letters, which we have read and all the other submissions of counsel.  We do accept, by majority, the defence submission that the totality of the sentences which would thus be imposed would, in the circumstances of this still young and troubled man, be too high.  In the view of the majority the total sentence should be 5½ years and we are therefore going to lower the two sentences sought by the Crown accordingly.

9.        On count 1 you are sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment, on count 2 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment consecutive, which makes a total of 5½ years imprisonment. 

10.      Mr Picot we have noted that you clearly have complex problems and that you didn't co-operate with the probation department when they came to write their social enquiry report.  We do very much hope that you will now co-operate with the authorities in the prison and take advantage of all the help that we have no doubt will be offered to you.

11.      Turning, Mr Gollop, to you, we would urge the prison authorities to maintain the monitoring and the therapeutic work that they are currently providing and we know they will read the reports but we do commend the recommendations set out on the final page of Dr Dillon's report to the authorities.  As far as this Court is concerned we give leave for that report to be disclosed to the prison authorities.

Authorities

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

Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law 1964.

Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 2000) (George Hales 2001) Cr. App. R. 92.

AG-v-O'Driscoll 1992/200.

Prior-v-AG [2002] JLR 11.

R-v-Mason [2006] 1 Cr. App. R.

AG-v-Mahe [2009] JRC 094.

AG-v-Power [2006] JRC 073.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.