Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC230B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th December 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Warren Neil Plant

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 11^th March, 2010, the defendant and the victim were both in the Trinity Arms Public House.  The defendant was drunk and behaving inappropriately.  An argument broke out between the defendant and the victim's group whilst the men were playing pool.  The defendant challenged the victim's father-in-law to a fight and the victim stepped in.  They argued and the defendant picked up a pool cue, raised it in the air and then brought it down on the table, breaking it into pieces.  Although there were a number of witnesses none were willing or capable of describing the assault, but it was clear that the victim was then stabbed in the neck by the defendant with the metal tip of the broken pool cue.  A scuffle ensued and the two men fell over a sofa, with the defendant landing on the victim.  Blood was pouring from the victim's neck wound.  The defendant was pulled from the victim and pressure was applied to the victim's wound.  The victim asked if he was going to die and was in genuine fear for his life.  A witness kept him conscious by talking to him, eventually having to shout at him until the ambulance arrived. 

The defendant was led away by a witness and then left the pub.  Not long afterwards witnesses who had left the Trinity Arms saw the defendant in St John's Inn.  He appeared to have changed his clothes and washed the blood from his hands.  The defendant approached the witness and repeatedly claimed that the victim had attacked him with a pool cue.  The defendant remained at St John's Inn until closing time and did not appear to the licensee to be intoxicated. 

At 10am the following morning the defendant returned to the St John's Inn wearing the same clothes as the night before.  He was arrested at St John's Inn at about 1:40pm.

In interview the defendant initially maintained he could not recollect the previous evening's events as he had been intoxicated.  He eventually admitted being in a fight. 

The victim suffered a puncture wound to his neck and the paramedic noted he could see a blood vessel pulsating in the wound.  His throat had been punctured.  He underwent exploratory surgery and a 1 inch tear was found in his pharynx.  He was transferred to critical care and kept intubated for several days.  He was discharged on 16^th March, 2010.  He has suffered permanent nerve damage which leads to weakness on one side of his mouth with some functional impairment.  The damage causes intermittent neuralgia and he has a 1-1½ scar on his neck.  Though not itself life threatening, the puncture wound was only inches from major blood vessels, a wound that could have been fatal. 

The defendant entered an early guilty plea but sentencing was subsequently delayed for 5 months during which expert reports were obtained dealing with the possible effects of the prescription drug Librium that had allegedly been taken by the defendant immediately prior to the attack.  It was concluded that, although the drug would not have caused the defendant to act autonomously, if taken with alcohol it would have reduced his inability to exercise self-control. 

A victim impact statement before the Court confirmed that at the time of sentence the victim still suffers from severe post traumatic stress disorder and has been unable to work since the attack.  There has been an impact on his family relationships.  His children have had nightmares and his wife suffers as he channels his anger towards her. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and assessed as being at low risk of re-offending, though that risk increases if he drinks; remorse; recently married; possible interaction between prescribed drugs and alcohol leading to impaired self control (though the medication contained a warning not to drink); good character references. 

Previous Convictions:

Twelve convictions for twenty-eight offences including affray, and  using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court noted that this was a very violent and dangerous assault with frightful consequences, including severe post traumatic stress disorder.  The Court concluded that custody was inevitable and right.  However, having taken into account the mitigation, particularly the medical evidence concerning the effects of the prescription drug, the Court felt able to reduce the Crown's conclusions. 

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

Advocate S. J. Young for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Plant, for reasons which may be connected with your alcohol intake and the prescription drugs you took earlier, you attacked a man who was not known to you in a public house in Trinity, using a pool cue, which you broke, presumably for that purpose.  The steel tip of that cue was thrust into the throat of the victim, it caused a 1-1½ inch wound.  While it was not in fact life-threatening, the puncture wound was only inches from other major vessels which, if damaged, could have proved fatal.  After you committed this assault you went outside.  You later spoke to Mr Michuri and told him that the victim had attacked you with a snooker cue and when you were told that the police would be looking for you and arriving soon, you left the public house, changed your clothes, which had the victim's blood on them and which have subsequently not been recovered, washed yourself and then went on to another public house where you continued drinking.  When arrested the following day you made a number of unsolicited comments to the police officers "It was just a pub fight" and "he tried to stab me in the face with something", "how is he doing anyway" and "you try to play pool, he's just a big idiot, a big fat idiot".  The attack has left the victim with a severe level of post traumatic stress disorder and the effect on him, his wife and his family, including two young children, has been devastating.  The Court has seen both a victim impact statement and a victim personal statement and takes the contents of both into account.  In particular we are advised today the victim has not been able to work since the assault.  So you now fall to be sentenced on the one count of grave and criminal assault which arises in respect of that incident. 

2.        In many ways the Court recognises that this was a tragic evening for both you and the victim.  We note that your record was a poor one but that you had turned your life around when you came to Jersey.  We note that you have got yourself settled and that you have recently married.  We have particularly noted the contents of the medical reports that have been put before us and we take into account in particular the evidence from Professor Birch and pages five and six of his report from lines 240 through to 284, where he sets out the effect of the combination of alcohol and this particular prescribed drug you are taking, ironically for the purposes of controlling your alcohol intake.  In relation to the medical report from Doctor Joseph, the summary of it is probably sufficient for the purposes of this sentence, where he says "I agree with the passage at page 23 of Professor Birch's report while they are generally regarded as tranquillisers, benzodiazepines, in some individuals, and particularly in combination with alcohol, may release aggression and induce antisocial behaviour.  The combination of abnormal behaviour and amnesia can be particularly dangerous".  And then he goes on to say the combination of Librium and alcohol is likely to have impaired your ability to exercise self control and foresee the consequences of your actions but you were not in a state of automatism at the material time. 

3.        The Court recognises that, although there is a warning on the bottle of Librium that you were not to take alcohol, it may not have been clear to you that the effects would still be in your system two days later, once you had finished that course.  However, you had not drunk alcohol, apparently, for at least a month during the time you were taking that course of drugs and the Court does take the view that you ought to have been aware from that month's abstinence that once you started again you would be likely to be affected by taking drink again, because that is something that anyone who does drink alcohol and then stops taking it for a while should be aware of. 

4.        We have taken into account all the mitigation which has been very fully and helpfully put before us by your counsel and in particular taken in to account your letter of remorse which we accept and we understand everything that you say in that letter.  We accept also that, given the way in which you have turned your life around, this incident was out of character and you have put before the Court many references which go to show that that is the case.  But at the end of the day it was a very violent and dangerous assault and you are here to be sentenced for that assault that you committed.  It is upon that basis, and recognising that as far as the victim is concerned it has had frightful consequences for him and for his family, that we think a custodial sentence is not only inevitable but is right. 

5.        As for the length of that sentence, the Court considers that the conclusions of the Crown are slightly too high and that insufficient weight has been given to the effects of the drug with the alcohol which you had taken.  As a result the Court is going to reduce the conclusions from 4 years' imprisonment to 3 years' imprisonment.  We recognise that the victim may well think that at 3 years' imprisonment we have given inadequate weight to the victim and his family's views, but we would like to emphasise, as we recognise the victim will also be looking carefully at these sentencing remarks, that it is a tragedy for both you and for the victim and we think we have reached the right balance in a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment and that is what we therefore pass. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.

AG-v-Lawlor [2009] JRC 150.