Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC185A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th October 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle, Tibbo, Fisher, Kerley and Bullen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jason Williamson

Mohammed Errais

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Jason Williamson

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At 1am on 5^th May, 2010. Errais, who had been drinking in town, visited his place of work, a takeaway at the bottom of Bath Street.  He ordered some food, and whilst waiting Williamson and several friends walked into the takeaway.  Williamson was heavily intoxicated and a verbal altercation took place between the two men. 

Williamson then left the takeaway with his friends and sat on a bench opposite.  Once Errais got his food, he went outside and briefly sat down next to the other men.  He then stood up and walked towards his home in Peter Street.  Police CCTV captured what happened next. 

Williamson got up and followed Errais, shouting at him before walking up and attacking him with punches and two hard heat butts.  Williamson's friends tried to pull him away, but he pinned Errais up against a shop front and continued to aim blows at him.  Errais ended up on the floor, at which point Williamson aimed a kick at his upper body.  In total Williamson threw approximately eighteen blows at Errais, not all of which made contact.  Errais then managed to leave the scene and Williamson had to be held back by his friends to stop him following. 

Errais then went home and changed his shirt which was covered in blood.  He saw that he had a wound to his head.  He remained in his flat for around four minutes, before taking an eight inch kitchen knife and going back out onto the street to find Williamson. 

Williamson and his friends were still in the vicinity, and froze when they saw Errais approach with the knife.  They then ran and Errais gave chase, singling out Williamson.  Errais then slashed Williamson across his face causing several serious deep wounds on his forehead, nose and lips.  Errais then left Williamson lying on the pavement and returned to his home. 

Errais was subsequently arrested at his flat and co-operated with the arresting officers, identifying the knife he had used.  During later interview he admitted taking the knife before going out to find Williamson but answered "no comment" to questions about the attack itself. 

Williamson was later arrested as he received treatment in hospital.  He initially denied attacking Errais but when shown CCTV film of the attack, admitted the assault.  He could provide no justification for his actions. 

The attack by Errais left Williamson with permanent scarring and only narrowly missed his eyes.  There was also damage to his teeth. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; co-operation with police; remorse; suffered serious injury as a result of his own violence; four children; good work record. 

Previous Convictions:

Six previous convictions for eight offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2001 and possessing an offensive weapon in 1996.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 4 years.  21 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court felt that has it not been for Williamson's drunkenness, the incident would not have happened.  Furthermore, had it not been for the serious injury, the court would have ordered a 3 year sentence for Williamson.  In any event it increased the Crown's conclusions. 

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Mohammed Errais

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).
1 count of:	Having in a public place an offensive weapon, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 3).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Williamson above. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; co-operation with police; remorse; provocation by Williamson; low risk of re-offending and no previous convictions. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of knife sought. 

Recommendation for deportation sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted the Errais' violence was "out of character", but noted that it was an act of deliberate vengeance.  Without the provocation it agreed that the Crown's conclusions would not have been a day too long, but bearing the provocation in mind, were prepared to reduce the Crown's conclusions.

Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of knife ordered. 

Recommendation for deportation made. 

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Williamson.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Errais.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner

1.        These defendants are to be sentenced for two separate, but inter-related grave and criminal assaults, each upon the other.  The violence was instigated by Williamson who was extremely drunk and committed a substantially unprovoked assault upon Errais by head butts, punching and kicking him.  The CCTV recorded eighteen blows and Errais suffered bruises and cuts, a possible nasal fracture and a chipped tooth.  Williamson was pulled off his victim by friends and Errais was able to leave the scene.  He went home and he collected an eight inch kitchen knife in order to visit retaliation upon Williamson.  Having found him, Errais attacked him and when Williamson was on the ground he slashed him across the face with the knife causing serious injuries which have left physical and psychological scars. 

2.        The Court has been referred to the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 and has taken account of all the factors listed in that case. 

3.        Williamson, none of this would have happened had you not become so drunk that you did not know what you were doing.  It was a substantially unprovoked attack which caused significant injuries.  You have a record for violence. 

4.        In mitigation we accept that you have pleaded guilty to the Indictment and were co-operative with the police; we have read your letter and we note your remorse and the difficulties which will arise so far as supporting your children are concerned.  We also take account of the after-effects of the retaliatory attack upon you.  Had it not been for those after-effects you would have received a sentence of 3 years imprisonment.  Now because of the punishment that you brought upon yourself, and as an act of mercy, we are prepared to reduce the sentence. 

5.        The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 2 years. 

6.        Errais, this was a horrific attack with a knife which traumatised and severely affected your victim.  We accept that it was out of character and would probably not have happened had you not been extremely drunk; yet you deliberately armed yourself with the knife and you set out for vengeance.  Had it not been for the extreme provocation that you suffered, the sentence of 5 years would not have been a day too long.  We have read your letter and we note the remorse that you have expressed; looking at matters in the round we are prepared to reduce the conclusions. 

7.        You are sentenced on Count 2; 4 years' imprisonment, on Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

8.        We turn to the question of deportation.  We have applied the two part test in R-v-Nazari [1980] 2 Cr App R (S) 84 which we are required to do; we had to ask ourselves whether your continued presence in Jersey is not in the public interest and if the answer to that is in the affirmative then we have to consider whether there are human rights considerations which would militate against deportation.  We have no doubt that the offence that you committed on that evening means that your continued presence in Jersey is not in the public interest.  We have considered carefully the human rights factors in the light of the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 and we have considered in particular the question of contact with your two children.  We have noted the judgment of the Family Division and understand that contact between a father and his children is very important.  The present position however is that only limited contact has been ordered by the Family Division.  Balancing that situation with the desirability of deporting offenders who resort to the use of knives to settle their disputes, we think that the balance tips in favour of deportation. 

9.        We will therefore recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor that you be deported from Jersey at the conclusion of your sentence. 

10.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the knife. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

R-v-Nazari [1980] 2 Cr App R (S) 84.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

AG-v-Cabot 2000/55B.

R-v-Smith-Bryant [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 49.

Attorney General's Reference Nos 17 & 18 of 1994 (Chamberlain & Or) (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 418.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.

AG-v-Farnon [2009] JRC 127.