Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC182

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 September 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Stephen Pereira

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

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Friday 18^th March, 2011, Pereira returned to his parents' home in a state of intoxication.  The defendant went straight to his room.  His mother and father were preparing the evening meal. 

When the meal was ready the defendant joined his parents at the kitchen table.  An argument developed over dinner and the defendant became aggressive resulting in his father instructing him to leave the house. 

The defendant got up and kicked a hole in a cupboard door.  He was goading his father and offering to fight him outside saying "I'm sick of life, I'm sick of you, fucking arsehole".  The defendant smashed a vase in the hallway and his mother was trying to calm him down. 

The defendant's father was still in the kitchen.  He held up a knife and shouted at the defendant "What you need is your balls cutting off" he then put the knife down and went into the hallway where the defendant pushed him to the floor.  The defendant's mother tried to intervene but the defendant pushed past her. 

The defendant's mother then telephoned the police and, in the Force Control Room recording of the call, the defendant and his father can be heard arguing in the background.  The defendant is heard to say on two occasions "I will kill you".  The defendant and his father went outside and the defendant punched his father, and then struck him several times on his left arm with a section of metal lattice taken from a garden archway.  The defendant's mother tried to intervene and was struck by her son with the metal lattice on the head and arm.  It was accepted by the Crown that the defendant was reckless as to his mother's safety and did not intend her harm. 

During this incident both the defendant's father and mother sustained injuries consistent with the effects of direct blunt trauma. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; inadequate childhood spent in part in children's homes; alleged his father was violent; letter from his mother supporting him and saying that his father had once hit him with a belt; educational difficulties; dyslexia; situation not helped by his cannabis and alcohol problems caused by his low self esteem; provocation by his father saying "What you need is your balls cutting off".  No intent to hurt his mother.  Weapon seized on the instant and not premeditated.  Defendant's letter to his mother read out to the Court.  Imprisonment would not address the defendant's needs. 

Previous Convictions:

Thirty convictions; none for violence but five for public order. 

Conclusions:

The Crown had regard for the guilty plea and gave credit for that.  The defendant did not intend to injure his mother.  Luckily no serious injuries were sustained.  The defendant is not a young man and has a bad record.  The Crown took into account the contents of the background reports regarding the defendant's depression and the nature of his relationship with his parents. 

This was a drink-fuelled attack by the defendant on his parents in their own home.  The Crown contended that a custodial sentence would be entirely appropriate. 

Total:  15 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted that there was an element of provocation that this was after the defendant had started the incident. The weapon was not the most serious.  The injuries were not particularly serious.  This was a spur-of-the-moment incident, but the defendant's actions were unacceptable. 

Total:  12 months' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order from 1^st and 7^th category licensed premises for a period of 6 months to commence upon release made. 

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

The BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Pereira, clearly you do not have an easy relationship with your father and we do accept that on this occasion there was provocation on his part when, after the incident had been started by you, he did, whilst holding a knife, say that you were better off having your balls cut off.  But the fact is there is no excuse for what happened that evening.  You came home drunk; you were clearly being extremely objectionable; an argument developed and you became aggressive and violent, kicking a hole in one of the doors in the kitchen and breaking a vase, and it was at that stage that your father uttered the remarks we have referred to.  And you ended up punching him and then smashing up items which he tried to stop.  Finally you struck him three or four times on the arm with the piece of the metal arch that we have seen, and we do accept that this, when one sees it, is not nearly as serious a weapon as perhaps it sounds in writing.  It is a very light implement; nevertheless you picked it up and you used it to strike him.  When your mother tried to intervene you struck her with the piece of metal on her head and arm, although it is accepted by the Crown that this was done recklessly rather than intentionally, and we of course, accept that.  Fortunately the injuries to your parents were not serious and they have fully recovered.  We accept that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment but it was unacceptable violence towards two people who are much older than yourself. 

2.        We do take into account in mitigation your guilty plea, the fact that you have no previous convictions for violence, although you have a number of public order offences and other offences.  And you have been on probation and on community service without any noticeable effect.  We noted you had a good record until your injury and we have read what the background reports say and what your advocate has said, and as we say, we accept that there was provocation in this case. 

3.        Nevertheless in our judgment this is an assault which requires a prison sentence and we cannot accept in the light of the reports that it is appropriate to impose a non-custodial sentence.  But we also accept that this was towards the lower end of grave and criminal assaults in that although a weapon was used, it was as we say, a very light piece of metal and no injuries of note were caused. 

4.        In the circumstances we think we can reduce the conclusions slightly.  So the sentence is as follows:- on Count 1; 3 months, on Count 2; 12 months and on Count 3; 9 months, all those to be concurrent, so that is 12 months' imprisonment in total.  We hope very much that you will take advantage of the various courses which are available from the prison which should put you in a better position when you come out to find employment. 

5.        We also make an Exclusion Order for 6 months from 1^st and 7^th category premises when you come out because drink is one of the causes of your difficulties. 

6.        So that is the sentence of the Court but we would also say this; we note that the defendant is apparently deemed unfit to work but he was fit enough to wield the weapon on this occasion despite his apparent shoulder injury and he is also fit enough to go out in his fishing boat taking people fishing.  In those circumstances it is not at all clear to us why he is not fit for work even if only some types of work and so we would ask the Crown Advocate to refer this matter back to the Social Security Department for consideration. 

Authorities

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

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.