Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC125

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

7^th July 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner and Jurats Le Breton, Le Cornu, Liddiard, Marett-Crosby and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Christophe Alain Claude Debieuvre

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a Newton hearing on 18^th and 21^st June 2010, and following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The offence in Count 1 was committed against the defendant's landlord and foreman, Andrew Muir.  The defendant had been drinking alcohol for most of the day and early evening.  Muir and another man Freitas (who also lived with these men) described the defendant as verbally aggressive and abusive which was usual when he had been drinking.  There was an earlier altercation between Debieuvre and Muir which seemed to calm down.  Later in the evening, the defendant was stopped by Freitas when he tried to take a knife from the kitchen.  Debieuvre subsequently returned to the kitchen and picked up a pan of scalding oil that had just been used to cook chips.  He was seen by Freitas to walk out of the kitchen behind the sofa where Muir was sitting and deliberately pour the scalding oil down the neck, back and shoulders of Muir. 

Muir jumped up in extreme pain.  He then retaliated by kicking Debieuvre to the head, face and body a number of times.  He has been dealt with separately by the Court. 

Muir suffered both 1^st and 2^nd degree burns.  He has healed remarkably well but had been left with residual scarring. 

Debieuvre was originally due to be sentenced with Muir on 11^th February, 2010, however he did not accept the Crown's version of events and so a Newton hearing was required.  The Court found against Debieuvre, preferring the Crown's version of events. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (reduced due to need for Newton hearing).  Expressed remorse; good references; followed advice from Social Enquiry Report/Psychologist's report; seeking to address alcohol problem.  Non-extensive record; gap between last serious offence and current offence; not pre-meditated in a significant way and attack was not sustained. 

Previous Convictions:

France

1997: Theft with assault.

2001: Insulting behaviour to person in public office.

2003: Theft with criminal damage.

Jersey

2006: Malicious damage.

2006: Refusing to obey police.

2007: Disorderly on licensed premises. 

Conclusions:

Debieuvre's continued presence in the island would be detrimental to the public good: seriousness of current offence, record of offending and level of alcohol use.  He is a French national with no family ties to the island. 

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

"The Crown Advocate was right to increase the conclusions from 5 years to 6 years as a result of the Newton hearing; that is clear from authority...We propose nevertheless to alter moderately the conclusions as the attack was not pre-meditated in a significant way and was not sustained."

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

"The Court has no hesitation in concluding that Debieuvre's continued presence in Jersey is contrary to the public interest.  The gravity of the offence is such that he has forfeited the privilege of living in the Island.  He has a serious drinking problem.  The background reports make further offending not unlikely.  He constitutes a risk to the public.  The defendant has no family or dependants living in Jersey.  We have considered carefully the relationship with his girlfriend but we do not think that tips the balance against deportation."

Recommendation for deportation made.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This was a grave and criminal assault of appalling ferocity.  Debieuvre went to the kitchen looking for weapon, he picked up a pan of boiling oil and deliberately poured it from behind, over the head and shoulders of a man called Muir with whom he was lodging.  There had been an argument but the Court has found that there was no significant prior provocation from Muir.  Muir subsequently committed a retaliatory grave and criminal assault upon the defendant but he has been dealt with and punished for that offence. 

2.        Muir suffered extreme pain.  He had first and second degree burns to his head, neck, shoulders, and other parts of his body.  Fortunately he has made a remarkable recovery although he has been left with permanent scarring as a result.  He has also suffered some psychological damage. 

3.        The defendant Debieuvre was drunk which is an aggravating feature.  Indeed, but for the drunkenness the attack would probably not have taken place.  The incident occurred as a result of loss of temper fuelled by alcohol.  The defendant is now aged 43 and has previous convictions in France and Jersey including one for theft and assault, although the last serious incident took place some years age. 

4.        In mitigation, the defendant has pleaded guilty to the Indictment, although the necessity for a Newton Hearing which found against him reduces the value of that plea.  He has expressed remorse for the assault.  References from his friends indicate that when not drunk he is a person of a kindly and warm disposition.  To his credit he is seeking to address his alcohol problem while he is in prison. 

5.        The Court's attention has been drawn to the guideline case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046 and we have carefully considered each of the relevant criteria set out by the Court of Appeal in that case.  We have also considered the other authorities placed before us. 

6.        The Crown Advocate was right to increase the conclusions from those offered at an earlier hearing from 5 years to 6 years as a result of the Newton hearing because it is clear from authority that the mitigating value of a guilty plea is reduced by an unsuccessful challenge to the Crown's factual conclusions.  We propose, nonetheless, to moderate slightly the Crown's conclusions because we think that the violence, while deliberate, was not premeditated in any significant way and furthermore, was not sustained. 

7.        The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 5 years.

8.        We turn to the question of deportation.  The Court has no hesitation in concluding that Debieuvre's continued presence in the island is contrary to the public interest.  We reach that conclusion for two reasons:-

(i)        The gravity of the offence which the defendant has committed is such that he has forfeited the privilege of living in this island;

(ii)       He has a very serious drinking problem which from the reports, makes further offending not unlikely and constitutes him a risk to the public. 

9.        So far as the second limb of the conventional test is concerned, the defendant has no family or dependents living in Jersey; we have considered carefully his relationship with his girlfriend but we do not consider that that relationship tips the balance against a recommendation for deportation.  In short, there are no human rights factors which would make such a recommendation disproportionate.  We will therefore recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor that Debieuvrre be deported from Jersey when he has served his sentence. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.

R-v-Hayles [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 26.

R-v-M [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 125.

R-v-Lewis [2007] EWCA 2015.

AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A.

AG-v-Picot [2009] JRC 196.

R-v-Hassall [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 67.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

Gomes unreported JJ 3^rd July 2007.

O'Dette unreported Guernsey 28^th march 2007.

AG-v-Benyoucef [2008] JRC 157.

AG-v-De Gouveia [2009] JLR 169.