Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC024

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th January 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Paul Marriott

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a Newton Hearing on 8^th December, 2009, and following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Saturday 27^th July, 2008, in the early hours of the morning were two groups of men.  In the first group, four men in their thirties who had been to a wedding during the day and had then gone out drinking in town.  The second group comprised the defendant and his friends Ryan Poignand and Callum Montgomery, who had been out to celebrate a recent birthday.  At the time they were all 21.

The groups met in Mulcaster Street at 0250, after the nightclubs had closed.  CCTV showed them walking towards the Royal Square.  One of the wedding party was called names by one or more of the defendant's group, which continued to goad them as they went up the street.  The wedding party stopped to talk to friends and the other group carried on, entering the Royal Square.  They were joined by three other males and congregated in front of the steps to the Royal Court. 

The wedding party then entered the Royal Square and as they crossed to the other side members of the defendant's group were abusive once more.  One of the wedding party swore back.  Montgomery's response was to walk towards this man with his arms out and chest forward in an aggressive manner.  Montgomery has pleaded guilty to assault and has already been sentenced.  Fearing violence, the man rugby-tackled Montgomery and pinned him to the floor in lawful self defence. 

This was the trigger for the violence that followed.  Members of the defendant's party started attacking members of the wedding party.  Marriott approached the man who was holding Montgomery on the floor.  The victim, Mr Waddington, gave evidence on oath that he saw Marriott attempt to punch the man on the floor, and he pushed Marriott away to prevent this.  In doing so he slipped and ended up on the floor himself.  He was then kicked in the head by Marriott and an unknown person.  These blows caused the double fracture of the jaw, serious lacerations to the mouth, and he began to bleed heavily. 

Another member of the wedding group, Mr Carswell, was also struck with considerable force, and fell to the floor making no attempt to use his hands to break his fall.  He sustained serious facial injuries and lay on the floor unconscious, blood pooling around his head.  Mr Waddington picked himself up from the floor and Marriott, seeing his blood-soaked face, ran off towards Snow Hill.  He was then captured on CCTV, pulling his jacket over his head to prevent identification. 

He rejoined Poignand, Montgomery and a fourth unknown male, and were later stopped by a police patrol.  Montgomery was recognised and arrested while the others were allowed to go on.  After this Marriott sent a text to a friend saying "F**k me, almost just got nicked, just flopped some c**t.  [the police officer] just stopped us and said walk on".  The next day Marriott learned that he was to be questioned by the police about his involvement, and sent this text message about the prospect of a cautioned interview: "There was no cameras there so should be able to blag it". 

The victims sustained serious injuries.  Mr Waddington's double fracture of the jaw was so severe that he thought he had lost several teeth, and asked a friend to look for them in the Royal Square.  He was taken to hospital by ambulance and operated on, with titanium plates and screws being inserted into his jaw.  He required considerable dental treatment and will do so for the foreseeable future. 

Mr Carswell was rendered unconscious for a short period of time and was also taken to hospital by ambulance.  His nose was deviated to one side causing mild nasal obstruction.  His left eye had multiple fractures and titanium plates and screws were inserted.  He needs ongoing treatment for facial scarring. 

There is no suggestion that any member of the wedding party had thrown a punch or otherwise sought to injure any member of the defendant's group, who were the aggressors. 

Marriott was fist interviewed on 30^th July, 2008 when he made no comment.  At a subsequent interview on 20^th October, 2008, following analysis of his mobile phone, further questions were put about his text messages.  Again he responded no comment. 

Marriott's basis of plea, revealed for the first time on 4^th September following the trial at which Poignand was acquitted by jury, was that he had rugby-tackled Mr Waddington as a purely defensive measure but that someone else had immediately rugby-tackled him, pinning his legs to the floor.  None of this was true.  The prosecution arranged for the matter to go back to Court and a Newton Hearing was set down for 8^th December, 2009.  At the hearing, the victim gave evidence, Marriott did not.  The Jurats were unanimous in reaching the conclusion that Marriott had kicked Mr Waddington to the head when he was on the floor, fracturing his jaw. 

Details of Mitigation:

Full credit not given for guilty plea following Newton Hearing, youth, no criminal convictions, delay in case coming to Court, although no credit given for delays resulting from defendant's actions. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 4 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You were part of a group who were the aggressors on the evening in question.  The other group was minding its own business after a wedding.  When the incident in the Royal Square started you immediately joined in and you kicked Mr Waddington, a member of the wedding party, to the head after he had slipped and fallen to the ground.  Mr Waddington was also kicked by another unknown member of your group and suffered a double fracture of the jaw, requiring surgery and the insertion of metal plates.  It is quite clear he suffered considerably as a result of what you and the other unknown member of your group did.  Medical evidence makes it clear that each of these kicks caused a fracture.  Another member of the wedding group was rendered unconscious and suffered serious facial injuries as a result of an attack by another unknown member of your group.

2.        This was a serious affray and we want to repeat what Commissioner Bailhache said in the case of AG-v-De Carteret [2009] JRC 242 namely "the Court has said on many occasions that drunken street violence of this kind is completely unacceptable."  The Court went on to say that is was determined to send out a strong message to those who engage in drink or drug-induced brutality of this kind that stern punishment will ensue.

3.        You have pleaded guilty and that normally attracts a reduction of something in the region of one third compared with a person who pleads not guilty.  However much of the credit for that has been lost in your case because you pleaded guilty on a basis which did not reflect what you had done at all.  You minimised your involvement and you denied kicking Mr Waddington.  As a result a Newton Hearing had to be held, Mr Waddington and others had to give evidence, and the Court found that you had indeed kicked him.  Somewhat surprisingly you did not even go into the witness box to give evidence about what you said you had done. 

4.        Advocate Grace, on your behalf, has put forward matters in mitigation.  She has emphasised that you did plead guilty and it is right that you do get some discount for that because a guilty plea followed by a Newton Hearing is better than a not guilty plea followed by a conviction.  Furthermore she emphasises your youth, you were only 21 at the time and you are still a young man; you also have no previous convictions although you have been warned twice at the Parish Hall for breach of the peace by fighting.  We have read carefully the references which you have provided, which are good, and we have also read the letters from your mother and your girlfriend.  Nevertheless there is no real evidence of a high level of remorse and the text which you sent immediately afterwards displayed a very callous attitude.  We would just mention one point which your counsel raised which is the fact that apart from Mr Montgomery, whose involvement was extremely limited and involved no real physical violence at all, you are the only member of your group who is facing punishment.  The fact that other members of your group have escaped justice does not mean that we should reduce the sentence on you for what you did.  They are lucky but that does not mean that you should not receive a just punishment for what you have been found to have done. 

5.        Advocate Grace has urged us to consider a non-custodial penalty but in view of what we have said about the violence which was meted out on this occasion, there can be absolutely no question of that.  Were it not for the matter I am about to mention, we consider that given all the circumstances and given the reduced discount for a guilty plea, the Crown's conclusions would have been correct.  But there has been considerable delay in this case.  We are not going to make any allowance for the delay since September of last year as the delay since then has been entirely your own fault.  You elected late in the day to go for a Newton Hearing and tender an unsatisfactory version of events, and the delay since then has been down to you.  However the delay before then was not your fault.  We are informed that it took some months apparently from when you were interviewed to your appearance before the Magistrate's Court and we are also informed that there was a further 4½ months between committal and Indictment.  If that is right it is highly unsatisfactory.  You are a young man and this, even discounting the delays since September, would have been hanging over you for over a year.  So we are going to reduce the conclusions to take delay into account. 

6.        The sentence of the Court is that you be sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment.

Authorities

AG-v-De Carteret [2009] JRC 242.

AG-v-Aubin [2007] JLR N 42.