Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC097

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th May 2011

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Scott Geddes

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 3).
1 count of:	Malicious damage (Count 4).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 3

On the evening of Wednesday 20^th October, 2010, a male (L) and his girlfriend (B) went out together for the evening, for the purposes of having some drinks and watching a football match at the premise known as "Champions" in Wharf Street.  The pair left "Champions" after the football match at approximately 22:00 hours. 

On exiting the premises B and L came across Geddes, who was known to B as he (Geddes) is a friend of B's ex-boyfriend.  L also recognised Geddes, though he could not recall his name. 

B began talking to Geddes who then turned to L and said something like "you better look after B".  L recalls replying to Geddes by telling him that it was none of his business and that he should stay out of it.  Geddes was with another male (not known to L or B).  A verbal altercation then took place between Geddes and L.  At some point during that altercation L received a single punch to the face.  Geddes denied causing this punch and alleged instead that it was delivered by the male he was with (whom he has never named). 

L then made the decision to run off into Commercial Street in order to get away.  Geddes and the male he was with gave chase and caught up with L in Commercial Street (the next street along). 

Geddes then punched L, causing him to fall to the ground.  The male Geddes was with then held L down whilst Geddes pinched and kicked him to the face.  L then recalls hearing B coming down the street and recalls hearing that she was on the phone to the police.  At that point Geddes and the male he was with released L and jogged back up the street towards the Buddha Bar.  L then got to his feet and waited for the police to arrive. 

Part of this incident was witnessed by an independent witness who had also been out with some of her friends that evening.  The witness recalls seeing a male (presumed from the description given and what followed to be L) running across the top of Wharf Street towards Liberation Square.  The witness then lost sight of that male (presumed to be L) but saw two other males run past, in the same direction, several seconds later.  She formed the opinion that the first male she saw was being chased by the other males. 

The witness had seen the male now presumed to be L just moments earlier and had noted that he had a bruise to one of eyes.  She recalls commenting to the friends that she was with "here comes someone who looks like he's been in a fight". 

Seconds later, the witness heard a male voice screaming and some groaning in pain.  She went with he friends to the end of the road and looked up towards Liberation Square, where she saw the first male she had seen lying in the middle of the road neat the junction with the Esplanade.  She saw that the second two males she had seen were stood next to him and that one of them was kicking and bending down to punch the first male.  She recalls seeing about two kicks to the upper body and two punches to the head or face.  She further recalls seeing the first male (the male on the ground) having his hands up in front of his face in order to protect himself. 

The witness shouted out to "stop, leave him alone".  She recalls one of the males then approaching her and saying "not being funny but you don't know what that guy just did".  She recalls replying to him "I don't care, he is bleeding".  Both males she had seen standing by the man on the ground then ran off into Wharf Street.  She then telephoned the police.  The independent witness made it clear in her statement to the police that whilst she did not see the initial part of the incident, at no time did she the male on the ground assaulting anyone or retaliating in any way.  She recalls seeing a female approaching the male on the ground.  On telephoning the police she was told that she did not have to wait for their arrival, and so she left the scene and walked home. 

The Force Medical Examiner recorded finding bruising to L's upper and lower eyelids and a laceration to the lower eyelid, which had been glued by staff at the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital.  He further recorded abrasions of the skin of the left side of the left eye, abrasions of the skin covering the second, third and fifth knuckles of the right dominant hand, abrasions of the skin covering the back of the third, fourth and fifth fingers of the left hand, an abrasion of the skin covering the front of the left knee.  Whilst Dr Barrett opines that these abrasions were consistent with "skin rubbing against a hard surface", as opposed to being caused by a direct blunt trauma, it is nonetheless the Crown's case that Geddes must be held accountable for the same, given that they would have been sustained during the course of the attack whilst L was on the ground. 

It was further noted that L had a right upper canine tooth missing. 

Via his legal representatives, Geddes has denied delivering any kicks to the L's head.  Whilst the only account of kicks being delivered to the head/face area of L comes from L himself, the independent witness makes it plain that she did not see the whole incident and that L was already on the ground, receiving blows, when she arrived at the scene. 

Count 4

During the afternoon of Sunday 31^st October, 2010, B and L drove to the Waterfront in St Helier, in order to have dinner together. The pair drove towards the Radisson Hotel and went around the roundabout, approaching the pick up and drop off point at the Waterfront.  At that point B noticed Scott Geddes and three others.  Owing to the fact that B had had trouble with Geddes and his associates in the very recent past, and the fact that she could see him now approaching them, she took the decision to leave the area and began to drive away. 

In any event, the group Geddes was a part of, approached the passenger's side front door of B's car and Geddes kicked the car door.  One of the other members of the group stood in front of B's car, in order to prevent her driving away.  That male is known to B as H.  Both Geddes and H were banging on the car trying to get in to it. 

B formed the view that they were trying to get to L, who was still sat in the vehicle next to her.  B then exited the vehicle and shouted to H "what are you doing, get away".  B tried to move H away but he took hold of her arms and pushed her away, causing her to fall to the floor.  She got back up and continued to tell him to go away.  H then picked B up, putting her over his shoulders, which caused them both to fall to the floor. 

B recalls that H then tried to enter her car via the driver's door.  At that point, another member of the group pulled H away.  Including Geddes, there were four in the group.  Whilst one of the group was trying to restrain H, he shouted "I'll show you what carved up means".  All four of the group Geddes was with then walked off into the underground car park using the stairs.  B recalls that the group were still shouting and swearing and generally verbally abusing her as they walked away.  On the advice of L, B then telephoned the police to report the incident. 

B recalls that at no time did Geddes assault her on this occasion, although he was responsible, possibly along with H, for causing damage to her vehicle.  The damage to her vehicle consisted of a large dent to the passenger's door.  Regrettably there are no photographs available of the damage caused and no estimate is available as to cost of any repairs. 

The Crown has made enquiries with the Criminal Justice Unit of the States of Jersey Police and from the information available, it would appear that on 15^th November, 2010, H was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 1 week's imprisonment. 

The aggravating features of the case were that:-

1.        Count 3 was a joint attack and Geddes declined to name the other person involved;

2.        Count 3 involved kicks and punches delivered to the head and face area whilst the victim was on the ground;

3.        Count 3 was entirely unprovoked;

4.        Count 4 committed just eleven days after Count 3 ; and

5.        Victim of Count 3 was in the car when Count 4 was committed and would thus have been extremely frightened. 

Details of Mitigation:

1.        Guilty plea;

2.        Residual youth;

3.        Remorse;

4.        Support of family and efforts made by the defendant to prove himself since release on bail (i.e. having secured full time employment);

5.        Delay resulting from the withdrawal of Counts 1 and 2 previously contained on Indictment.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions for five offences, although none of those offences were considered relevant to the matters on the present Indictment. 

Conclusions:

Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	£200 fine or 4 days' imprisonment, in default, consecutive.

Breach of binding Over Order dated 11^th June, 2010, imposed by the Magistrate's Court - No separate penalty. 

Total:  2 years' imprisonment plus £200 fine. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court noted in relation to Count 3, the aggregating factors of the incident having been committed at night with two assailants on one victim.  It noted that the victim had been chased from one street to another and that the resulting assault was very serious. 

The Court noted that the Royal Court has warned defendants on many occasions that such matters will be dealt with severely.  The Court further noted the absence of any provocation that had been identified.  Nonetheless the Court felt able to avoid a custodial sentence in this particular case.  The Court took into account the fact that Geddes had served some 5 months on remand and that that remand period had served as a short shock.  The Court further noted the fact that the defendant maintained the support of his family and that his mother had turned up in Court to support him.  The efforts Geddes had made since being released on bail, for example, finding full time employment, were also taken into account.  The Court warned that a sentence of community service was not a soft option, and that Geddes would be deprived of his liberty in his leisure time whilst completing that Order. 

Count 3:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment and an 18 month Probation Order.
Count 4:	£200 fine or 4 days' imprisonment, in default, concurrent.

Breach of Binding Over Order - No separate penalty.

Total:  240 hours' Community Service Order together with a Probation Order for 18 Months, plus a £200 fine. 

One month given in which to pay fine. 

D. M. Cadin, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains two counts, one of grave and criminal assault and the other of malicious damage.  The grave and criminal assault charge arises out of an incident at night when you and one of your friends chased the victim from one street to another, set upon him and kicked and punched him while he was on the ground.  This was a very serious assault.  The Court has said many times that it will deal severely with offences of violence committed on the streets of St Helier, especially when committed at night, which is even more frightening for the victim because there are fewer people on hand to help him; and this was a nasty and a cowardly offence because there were two of you ganging up on one person who tried to get away. 

2.        There was no provocation as far as the Court can tell on the part of the victim, certainly none that has been identified and there really is no excuse for your behaviour that evening.  The offence calls for a severe sentence. 

3.        In fact we are going to avoid a custodial sentence in your case.  Some people who do not know better think that a sentence of community service is some form of let off or a soft sentence.  This Court knows that it is not.  A sentence of community service deprives offenders of their liberty in their leisure time, but it enables them to work constructively during the working week so that they are not a burden on the public purse.  The work that is done benefits charities, community centres, hostels and the elderly in particular, but it is worth emphasising that an Order for community service is a deprivation of liberty during the time that the service is performed. 

4.        The Court has taken into account the fact that you have served some five months or so on remand between November last year and 25^th March when you were granted conditional bail and notes that that has been a short shock to you.  That is very much taken into account as one of the reasons why the Court feels able to avoid a long custodial sentence.  We have also taken very much into account your youth and the remorse which is well expressed by your counsel and particularly the fact that you have used your time sensibly since being granted bail and have been offered a job.  Indeed, we note the support of your family, and your mother being present in Court today. 

5.        I want to warn you that if you breach the Order which we are about to impose you will be brought back to this Court and it is the very strong recommendation of this Court that the alternative sentence in custody should then be imposed. 

6.        Having regard to those factors we sentence you on Count 3 to 240 hours' community service, the alternative would have been a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and in addition you are put on probation for 18 months.  In relation to Count 4 you will be fined £200 or 4 days' imprisonment in default of payment, and we will give you one month in which the pay the fine. 

Authorities

Magistrate's Court Guidelines.

Whelan's Aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Hilario [2010] JRC 039.

AG-v-Wakeling and O'Driscoll [1990] JLR N20c.