Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC142

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 July 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

Liam Thomas Paul Dorney

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The incident took place on Saturday 9^th April, 2011, inside the public house known as Kitty O'Shea's, St Helier, the licensee of which is Declan Kelly.  The defendant is a regular and had spent the evening there on this occasion. 

Earlier that evening the defendant had ordered a pint of Guinness and a coke and Mr Kelly, who was serving behind the bar, had made a joke by saying "A can of Coke?" as opposed to the drug cocaine.  Nothing was said at that time.  At approximately 23:00 hours the defendant approached Mr Kelly saying "I'm not a drug dealer, I am a republican, we don't condone drugs."

The defendant then grabbed the back of Mr Kelly's head and attempted to pull it down towards the bar top but Mr Kelly managed to free himself.  The defendant punched Mr Kelly on the left side of his head and attempted to throw a number of further punches which did not connect before he was pulled back by another male. 

Whilst prevented from going around the bar, the defendant reached out and began to picking up bottles and glasses from the bar top, breaking some of them and throwing them in the direction of Mr Kelly, who said "All the bottles missed me but as the bar is open they were going everywhere.  I'm surprised no one got seriously hurt."  As it was, there is no evidence that the broken glasses and bottles injured Mr Kelly or anyone else in the pub. 

Mr Kelly picked up the telephone to call the Police to which the defendant stated "You better not be calling the police.  If you are I'll kill you."  The defendant lunged towards Mr Kelly once again and attempted to throw a bar stool at him over the bar.  He was restrained once again by a number of customers who removed him from the pub. 

Five witness statements were taken as to the behaviour of the defendant, including one off-duty police officer.  In his statement Mr Kelly stated that he was "really scared" during the incident.  In addition, the barmaid state that she was "shaken up by his actions" and that seeing the glass being thrown at Mr Kelly "shocked me and I admit I was scared for myself and others".  The off duty officer said "I could see that he (Dorney) picked up at least one such glass or bottle and smashed in onto the bar top before throwing it towards male 2 (the licensee)."  Another witness said "The male (Dorney) then started to pick up various full and empty bottles of beer and began to throw them at Declan (Mr Kelly).  He was throwing them with force because they were missing Declan and going right across the bar in the band's direction.  If one of them had hit someone they would have been seriously hurt.  The guy was just going mad." 

Police officers located the defendant in the area of Seale Street a few minutes later where he identified himself as Brian McCool.  He was arrested on suspicion of malicious damage and grave and criminal assault to which he made no reply.  Two driving licences in the defendant's real name were found on him. 

During interview the defendant maintained that his name was Brian McCool and that he had obtained the driving licences in the false name of Dorney in order to assist in gaining employment as a bricklayer.  His true identity was later confirmed by conducting a search on his fingerprints. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, good working record. 

Previous Convictions:

Fourteen convictions, some involving violence and public disorder.

Conclusions:

12 month exclusion order from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises sought upon release.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

2 year exclusion order from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises made upon release.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This must have been a terrifying experience for those in the public house.  Your excuse for losing your temper really does not matter, when you are drinking you do not need an excuse, any excuse will do to lose your temper and start to be violent.  It is quite clear that this sort of public violence will be regarded seriously by the Court and will lead, inevitably, to a prison sentence of one sort or another. 

2.        Let me say at once, you are not going to go back to prison now, there are only two reasons for that:-

(i)        You have served a short prison sentence, had that not been so we would have felt bound to send you to prison today.  

(ii)       You are in work, in a good job supporting your children even though you are not going back to see them, and paying your way here in Jersey. 

And so the question we have had to ask ourselves is not is this offence worth a prison sentence, yes it is, the question we have had to ask ourselves is whether the additional time that you would serve, which would only be a matter of a few months, over and above the time that you have spent on remand, whether anything is going to be gained by that.  In our judgment nothing would be gained; what would be lost would be your job.  You would come out without a job, you would not be supporting your family, you would not be paying your way here, you would almost certainly turn to drink and we would be back again in a few months time. 

3.        For those two reasons, alone, we are not going to impose an immediate custodial sentence, but as I have indicated this is the sort of offending which properly attracts such a sentence.  Had it been an immediate sentence today, it would have been one of 12 months' imprisonment, the 3 months on remand would have counted towards that sentence.  So imposing, as we do, a suspended sentence, we give credit for the fact that you have served 3 months on remand, it would not be taken into account were you to breach the sentence. 

4.        The sentence will be one of 9 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, which means that if during the next 2 years you commit any offences punishable with imprisonment, which is pretty well any offence, you will be liable to be brought back to this Court and not simply given a sentence for the new offence, but you will serve the 9 months that we impose now, and if it is anything to do with drunken violence you can have absolutely no doubt whatsoever where you are going, job or not.  It is a matter for you, we suspect that you are a perfectly pleasant young man when you are sober, you are an extremely unpleasant young man when you are drunk.  It is up to you to decide what kind of person you are going to be. 

5.        In addition, quite rightly, the Crown has asked for an Exclusion Order.  That will operate as a penalty for you, but its prime purpose is to protect people from your drunkenness.  You will be excluded from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises for a period of 2 years.  For the next 2 years you cannot go into those sorts of premises. 

6.        You are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, and an Exclusion Order for 2 years as well. 

Authorities

AG-v-Figueira [2003] JRC 178.

AG-v-Saldana [2009] JRC 032.

AG-v-Pereira [2009] JRC 060.

AG-v-Ferreira [2009] JRC 087.

AG-v-Shewan 1999 JLR N 13b.