Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC194

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 September 2011

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Morgan and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

James Alistair Giles

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

First Indictment

1 count of:

Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Assault (Count 1).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

On 18^th February, 2011, police witnessed a doorman of St James' Wine Bar having problems with the defendant who was intoxicated.  The police subsequently told the defendant to leave the area and after initially refusing he walked towards Burrard Street.  After reaching Cattle Street, however, he started to return to James Street.  Police ordered him to leave the area but he refused and was subsequently arrested. 

Second Indictment

On 24^th July, 2011, whilst on bail for the obstruction offence, the defendant had been drinking during the evening before going to a party at a neighbouring property.  His partner, the victim, went to bed but could not sleep due to the noise therefore repeatedly asked those at the party to turn the noise down.  When the defendant returned he went to bed but an argument soon took place between him and his partner as the defendant would not get out of bed when asked.  The defendant, who was intoxicated, slapped the victim forcefully twice.  The victim was seven months' pregnant at the time and the argument was also witnessed by one of the victim's children who became upset.  The victim later withdrew her statement but confirmed the truth of its contents. 

Previous Offences

On 5^th October, 2009, the defendant and his friend left the defendant's home after drinking heavily and went for a drive.  They were later involved in a single car collision before fleeing the scene before the police arrived.  When the police attended at the defendant's home he was found hiding in an upstairs bedroom.  When told he was under arrest he became violent, causing an officer to be thrown to the ground.  He also made abusive, obscene and racist remarks at them, spat at one and kicked a door closed in another's face. 

The defendant was sentenced on 3^rd December, 2011 and received a total of 240 hours' community service, 2 years' probation and was disqualified from driving for 3 years.  The offences put him breach of a previous 6 months' Binding-Over Order for which he received no separate penalty. 

Aggravating features:-

First and second Indictment offence committed whilst subject to Community Service and Probation Orders which he had not fully complied with;

Second Indictment offence committed whilst on bail;

Domestic assault on pregnant partner and in front of a young child;

The defendant was intoxicated on all occasions. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; residual youth; his partner had given birth 4 days prior to sentencing and required support. 

Previous Convictions:

64 convictions consisting of a large number of motoring offences, assaults (including on police officers) and obstructing police officers.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Breach Indictment imposed by the Royal Court on 3^rd December, 2010

Count 1:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 3:	3 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach indictment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 7:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 9:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.

Total:  1 year, 3 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 12 months from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

When the defendant was sentenced on 3^rd December, 2010, the Court considered there was a glimmer of hope in respect of his impending fatherhood but also gave the warning that if he breached the Community Service or Probation Orders that he would be sent to youth detention.  With that in mind the Court could not impose a community penalty and stated the following:-

1.     The Court exercised mercy last time which was abused by the defendant.  If the Court exercises mercy then it expects it to be respected. 

2.     The Court expects Community Service Orders to be carried out if a defendant is given that opportunity. 

3.     The Court deprecates violence in the home which should be a place of safety. 

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Breach Indictment imposed by the Royal Court on 3^rd December, 2010

Count 1:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 3:	3 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach indictment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 of Breach Indictment.
Count 7:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 9:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.
Count 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of Breach Indictment.

Total:  1 year, 3 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 12 months from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises except whilst undertaking work made. 

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, assault committed whilst on bail, and for breaching a Community Service Order exceptionally imposed by the Court in relation to numerous driving offences and assaults against police officers. 

2.        When sentencing the defendant to community service in December 2010, the Deputy Bailiff said this:-

"The Court has decided, exceptionally and as an act of mercy, not to sentence you to youth detention on this occasion.  It does so because there is just a glimmer of light, a very small glimmer of light, despite your previous offending, in your attitude towards fatherhood."

He also gave the following warning:-

"This Court has absolutely no doubt at all that if you breach the terms of the Probation Order that we are going to impose on you or if you do not perform the community service that we are going to require you to do, then you will be sent to youth detention for these offences.  I hope that is absolutely clear to you."

3.        The defendant has 64 convictions for a large number of motoring offences, ten assaults, including seven on police officers, malicious damage, resisting arrest and three for obstructing police officers.  He is assessed at a very high risk of reoffending.  He is also considered not suitable for community service because of his poor performance. 

4.        Although the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 do not apply to him, bearing in mind that he is now 21 years of age, we agree with the Crown that had the defendant been 20 we would have imposed a sentence of youth detention because no other method of dealing with the defendant would have been appropriate. 

5.        We have considered carefully the mitigation, your residual youth, you are still 21, and of course the guilty pleas.  The defendant's partner who is present in Court, has given birth recently to their second child and may need further treatment.  She has written to us and through counsel has asked for mercy, in particular to assist her with the second child and with the other children, and we have considered her letter carefully.  However the defendant informs us through counsel, that the relationship is over and after spending a few months at home assisting his partner, he will be moving out to accommodation of his own. 

6.        In our view, as much as we sympathise with his partner, and we do, the offending here is too serious to justify our exceptionally exercising mercy by imposing community service as requested by counsel, particularly in view of the defendant's poor record of community service, the strong reservations expressed by Mr Le Marrec, and because the Court exercised exceptional mercy in December of last year. 

7.        We have considered the defendant's letter and the letter from his mother, the reports and all of the mitigation put forward by Miss Grace, but we say this.  Firstly, the Court has already granted the defendant's plea for mercy and he has abused it.  If the Court does exercise mercy, exceptionally, it does expect its act of leniency to be respected.  Secondly, when the Court sentences a defendant to community service it expects that community service to be carried out fully.  Community service is an important tool to enable the Court to keep a defendant, who would otherwise go to prison, in the community but any defendant subject to or sentenced to community service must understand that if he is given that opportunity then he abuses it at his peril.  Thirdly, as made clear in the case of AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182, we deprecate violence in the home, particularly in the presence of children.  A woman's home should be a place of safety for her and for her children.  We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown. 

8.        In relation to the First Indictment you are sentenced to 2 weeks' imprisonment.  On the Second Indictment you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.  .  For the previous offences Count 1; 2 months' imprisonment, Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 3; 3 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 4; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 5; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  That is a total of 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment and the Second Indictment.  Turning to Counts 6-10, for Count 6; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 7; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, Count 8; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, Count 8; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 10; 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  That is a total of 9 months' imprisonment, which will be consecutive to the First Indictment, the Second Indictment and Counts 1-5.  Therefore the total that you will serve is 1 year, 3 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment.

9.        We grant the Exclusion Order and you will be excluded from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises for a period of 12 months from your release but we exempt from that the usual premises which are exempted such as the Airport and the Arts Centre, and secondly, any premises at which you may be working whilst you are working. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.

AG-v-Giles [2010] JRC 194.