Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC241

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th December 2009

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq, Le Breton, Fisher, Kerley and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Lee Pallett

M

O

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 20^th November, 2009, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Ryan Lee Pallett

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 1).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1

Following an altercation in Mulcaster Street involving a large group of people including the three defendants and the victim, the defendants followed the victim up the street.  All three defendants had been drinking heavily.  O had consumed a large amount of vodka.

The grave and criminal assault was caught on CCTV outside Chambers (the Court was shown the CCTV footage).  Pallett grabbed the victim and restrained him whilst M and O hit him repeatedly about the head and face with the heels of M's stiletto shoes.  At on point M appeared to press the heel of her shoe into the victim's face.  The victim at no point hit out and only defended himself by trying to cover his face.  O continued to hit him in the face with the shoe, aiming the blows upwards under the victim's arms.  The victim then fell to the floor and was repeatedly kicked by the defendants, with Pallett delivering a blow to the head which was described by a witness as "kicking a football as hard as he could".  O stamped on his head whilst wearing stiletto shoes.  A female witness intervened at this point and the defendants left the scene, leaving the victim unconscious and clearly seriously injured on the ground.  An ambulance was called and the victim was taken to hospital.  M and O were arrested a short while later at Snow Hill and Pallett was arrested the following day.

In interview Pallett denied that he was involved in the assault despite clear CCTV evidence.  He implied that the victim was responsible for what had happened.  O refused to watch the footage and when asked what she thought of the news that the victim may have lost his sight in one eye said "it will stop him touching up kids".

The victim was treated by the trauma team at the General Hospital.  He underwent emergency surgery in an attempt to save the sight in his left eye.  This was unfortunately unsuccessful.  The victim later underwent reconstructive surgery involving the removal of a rib in order to rebuild his eye socket.  Further surgery to correct a drooping eyelid and remove excess bone left by the first surgery was still a possibility at the sentencing date. 

The Court heard that the assault had been a form of vigilante justice in retaliation for an unsubstantiated rumour that the victim had acted inappropriately with a member of Pallett's family. 

Counts 2-5

Whilst remanded on Magistrate's Court bail, and having been warned not to approach the victim, O sent a number of threatening messages via Facebook to the victim, one of which read "you and them little grasses show your face at the trial and see what fucking happens PEODO (sic)".  She sent similar messages to two other prosecution witnesses.

O also sent a message to the victim's girlfriend which read "tell ur peodo boyfriend if he sends me another threatening message he will fucking no about it!!!  HES that big and scary he got beaten up by little girls!  HE DON'T KNOW WOT HE HAS COMING NEXT!  Oh wait he cant see wots coming next hahaha.)".  The last part of this message, a full stop followed by a bracket, is a variation on the standard "smiley face" written thus :) and common in internet and text communication.  In this case the smiley face has only one "eye".  The message clearly indicated that O felt no remorse for her earlier actions. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, father of a young child, residual youth.

Previous Convictions:

Eight convictions for eighteen offences.  These include convictions for two common assaults and three grave and criminal assaults.  For two of the grave and criminal assaults he received sentences of 12 months' youth detention and 18 months' youth detention respectively.

Conclusions:

A starting point of 7 years was taken in respect of Count 1.  The Crown also argued that because of the serious nature of the offending, the Court was not, in relation to O, bound by Article 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Count 1:

4½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court described the attack as shocking and appalling, and commented on the callousness of leaving the victim in the street.  The Learned Commissioner said that the attack had been gratuitous violence fuelled by alcohol.  The Court further stated that the unsubstantiated rumour was no excuse, and that it was wholly unacceptable for people to take the law into their own hands.

The Court confirmed that 7 years was the minimum appropriate starting point.

Conclusions granted.

M

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 1).

Age:  17.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Pallett above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth, previous good character and mother of a 6 month old daughter.  She showed remorse and was co-operative with the police in interview.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

A starting point of 7 years was taken in respect of Count 1.  The Crown also argued that because of the serious nature of the offending, the Court was not, in relation to O, bound by Article 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Count 1:

3 years' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court described the attack as shocking and appalling, and commented on the callousness of leaving the victim in the street.  The Learned Commissioner said that the attack had been gratuitous violence fuelled by alcohol.  The Court further stated that the unsubstantiated rumour was no excuse, and that it was wholly unacceptable for people to take the law into their own hands.

The Court confirmed that 7 years was the minimum appropriate starting point

Conclusions granted.

O

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 1).
4 counts of:	Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.  (Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Age:  16.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Pallett above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, previous good character, had lost her Army place.  Was partially co-operative with the police.

Previous Convictions:

None although she had been warned on several occasions at the Parish Hall about violent behaviour.

Conclusions:

A starting point of 7 years was taken in respect of Count 1.  The Crown also argued that because of the serious nature of the offending, the Court was not, in relation to O, bound by Article 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Count 1:	3 years' youth detention.
Count 2:	6 months' youth detention, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 3:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 4:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 5:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 2.

Total:  3 years' and 6 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court described the attack as shocking and appalling, and commented on the callousness of leaving the victim in the street.  The Learned Commissioner said that the attack had been gratuitous violence fuelled by alcohol.  The Court further stated that the unsubstantiated rumour was no excuse, and that it was wholly unacceptable for people to take the law into their own hands.

The Court confirmed that 7 years was the minimum appropriate starting point

Conclusions granted.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for Pallett.

Advocate D. P. Le Maistre for M.

Advocate M. R. Godden for O.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This is a shocking and appalling case.  The violent nature of the attack upon the victim; the callousness of the defendants in leaving him unconscious in the street; and the consequences for the victim, mark this out from the average grave and criminal assault.  It is shocking that two young women of sixteen should have used stiletto heels as a weapon with which to strike the face of the victim.  The fact that the young victim has been blinded in one eye is the appalling consequence of this street violence, with which he will have to live for the rest of his life.  The attack was completely unprovoked; the unsubstantiated rumour of a sexual misdemeanour on the part of the victim was no excuse.  It is not acceptable for young people to take the law into their own hands.  This was gratuitous violence fuelled by drinking too much alcohol. 

2.        The Crown Advocate has properly drawn our attention to all the relevant factors listed in Harrison-v-AG [2004] JRC 111 and we have taken note of them.  He has taken a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment and we think that that figure is the minimum appropriate starting point for an offence of this kind.

3.        Pallett is 22 and has a bad record including previous convictions for offences of violence.  He is the oldest of the group and he delivered a heavy kick to the victim's head while he was on the ground.  In mitigation he has pleaded guilty to the offence and he has, as his counsel has said, the benefit of residual youth.  Your Advocate has said everything that could be said on your behalf but the Court has to punish you for this offence.  

4.        The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment.

5.        CO, the Court has read your letter and the other references which were passed up to us.  The messages which you placed on Facebook amounted to a serious attempt to interfere with the course of justice and we think that you knew that very well.  Had you been older the offences which you committed would have been punished by a much longer sentence than 6 months.  We are glad that you have been making very good progress while you have been in custody and we hope that that will continue so that when you come out of custody you will have the skills to enable you to make something of your life.  I have to tell you that the offences which you have committed are too serious in the view of the Court to be dealt with by a non-custodial sentence. 

6.        The conclusions are accordingly granted and you are sentenced on Count 1; 3 years' youth detention, on Count 2-5; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent but consecutive to Count 1, making a total of 3 years' 6 months' youth detention and I have to tell you that you will be liable to supervision for a period of time by the Probation or other officer when you have completed your sentence.

7.        HM, you have let yourself down very badly and you have let down your baby as well and you will have to live with that just as the young man whom you hit in the way that you did, will have to live with the consequences of your actions for even longer.  We have read your letter and we are glad that you now acknowledge the seriousness of the offence.  We have taken careful note of all your counsel's submissions, but in your case too, we think that the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. 

8.        The conclusions are accordingly granted in your case too and you are sentenced to 3 years' youth detention.

Authorities

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

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182.

AG-v-SM and Others [2007] JRC 162.

AG-v-Cabot [2000] JRC 55B.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.

AG-v-Lenton and Fannon [1992] JLR N 10a.

AG-v-Tucker [2003] JRC 119.