Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC113

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th June 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

Paulo Jorge Figueira Da Silva

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

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At approximately 5pm on Sunday 30^th January, 2011, the defendant telephoned his girlfriend (the victim) informing her that he was outside her house in St Peter.  The victim let the defendant in but noticed he was drunk so asked him to leave. The defendant started to question the victim's behaviour and asking questions about who she was seeing. 

The defendant took hold of the victim in a non-violent fashion.  Without warning the defendant slapped the victim across the face causing the victim's head to turn and caused her to spill her coffee.  The defendant grabbed the victim by her clothes, dragged her onto her bed and straddled her whilst she lay on her back.  The victim tried to get free by kicking and slapping the defendant.  At that point the defendant went to head butt the victim which made contact with her although the victim could not recall where.   

The defendant then punched the victim in the face with such force that she thought he had broken one of her teeth, although it did not.  The victim asked the defendant not to hit her anymore to which he responded with "Scream if you want".  The victim tried to scream but the defendant grabbed hold of her neck with his right hand and pressed down so that she could not scream or breathe.  The defendant held the victim's neck for almost a minute during which time she thought she was going to die. 

The defendant eventually released his grip and the victim began to cry.  The defendant started to cry and said he was sorry and that he had not meant to hurt her and that she did not deserve it.  The defendant asked the victim if she wanted to go into town with him to which she agreed in the hope that it would allow her the opportunity to escape from the defendant.  The whole incident lasted approximately 25 minutes (Count 1). 

On the bus journey into town the victim remained tearful and frightened of the defendant.  Once in town the victim tried to telephone her daughter from one of the toilets in Sand Street car park but there was no answer.  The victim also tried to phone her daughter's boyfriend several times but without success. 

At some point the victim made an excuse to go outside of a bar to smoke a cigarette whilst the defendant remained inside.  The victim walked towards Bond Street but having noticed that the defendant had followed her, she pretended to use a nearby cash machine.  CCTV shows the defendant running after the victim as she ran towards the Esplanade.  The victim sought sanctuary in the female toilets at the bus station.  The defendant entered the toilets but left after he was told to leave by two other females.  The victim came out of the cubicle and asked the two females for the police's telephone number.  The females told the victim to stay in the cubicle while they phoned the police. 

The defendant then returned to the toilet and managed to push open the cubicle door.  The defendant grabbed the victim's hair and pulled her backwards.  The defendant tried to cover the victim's mouth to prevent her screaming. 

Police officers attended the scene and could hear the victim's screams.  They entered the toilets and saw that the victim was cowering with her back turned to the defendant who had hold of her arms.  During this incident the victim had been in fear of her life. 

The police took the defendant and arrested him at approximately 8pm, noting he smelt of alcohol and had slurred speech (Count 2). 

The victim had sustained injuries to her nose, neck and head which were consistent with her account of the assault. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; no previous convictions for violence; remorse; social enquiry report considered the defendant to be at low risk of re-offending; the victim appeared to have forgiven the defendant as she visited him regularly whilst he was in custody.  Victim provided a statement that she has recovered without residual effects. 

Previous Convictions:

Four convictions which relate to motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

The Crown noted that at the time of sentencing, the defendant would have been on remand for 130 days, which is equivalent to a sentence of 6 months and 14 days. 

Total:  2½ years' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order for 6 months following release in relation to 1^st, 4^th and 7^th Category premises sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court explained that this was a deplorable attack on the victim.  The Court stated that an attack in the home is just as serious, if not more serious, as an attack in public.  Domestic violence was said to not only be an assault on a person, but on the security of a person's home.  The Court explained that the victim must have been very frightened during the assaults, and was put in the terrible position of being ashamed about reporting the incidents, believing that she was in some way responsible for them. 

The Court explained that domestic violence offences will be met with a custodial sentence unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.  Despite the defendant's mitigation, a custodial sentence was appropriate. 

Total:  2 years' imprisonment.

No Exclusion Order made.

N. M. Santos-Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment for two counts of grave and criminal assault.  It was a serious, sustained attack in private and then in a public place.  In private you punched your partner in the face with such force that she thought one of her teeth was broken, although in fact it was not.  You took her by her neck in such a way that she could not breathe and at that time she thought she might die.  It appears that you headbutted her.  Subsequently, you left the home with her and in the town you assaulted her in the female toilets at Liberation Bus Station.  In the light of the assault which had already taken place, she must have been extremely frightened at that stage.  There is an element of hounding her in this second offence during which you pulled her by the hair and tried to get her out of the cubicle in which she had locked herself for her own protection. 

2.        It has been said many times that domestic assaults are every bit as serious as assaults on strangers.  In many cases they are even worse because the victim not only suffers the violence of the assault, but also the violence within a relationship which was important to her.  There is a risk in some cases that, quite wrongly, for no good reason, the victim considers that she is at fault for the violence which has been committed on her.  And the fact that such assaults often take place in the home makes matters even worse because they take place in a place which the woman is entitled to regard as a place of safety and security, as the Court said in AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182. 

3.        In this case we take into account that you have pleaded guilty; that there is no history of previous domestic violence and you have no relevant previous convictions.  We have taken into account the remorse which you have expressed and we have looked carefully at the social enquiry report and all the other documents before the Court.  We have noted that you hope to establish an ongoing relationship with the victim and whether that is something which you both want in the fullness of time, only time will tell.  But despite all this mitigation the Court considers that there is an important message for the public, namely that the nature of the offences which you have committed is such that a custodial sentence must be imposed.  Indeed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, either in relation to the offence or the victim and her family, domestic violence will be very likely to attract a custodial sentence. 

4.        Having regard to all these considerations the Court considers that you should be sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment which will be imposed on each count, the sentences will run concurrently, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment. 

5.        The Court makes no order in relation to exclusion although we see that there was some drunkenness on this occasion we do not think an additional punishment as such for an exclusion order is appropriate. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Ballance [2011] JRC 075.

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-De Freitas 2001/86B.

AG-v-Scott 2001/41.

AG-v-Le Feuvre [1996] JLR N 9b.