Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number sentencing after Assize trial - common assault - drugs - possession - Class B.

[2011]JRC225

Royal Court

(Samedi)

25 November 2011

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

Darren Gerald Louvel

Kataryzna Dys

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction at Assize trial on 12th October, 2011, on the following charges:

Darren Gerald Louvel

First Indictment

1 count of:

Common assault (Count 1A).

Age:  37.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 4^th April, 2011, Louvel and his partner Dys went to the address of the victim.  Dys knocked on the door and was let in by the victim.  Louvel was standing out of sight but as the victim turned to re-enter the property Louvel appeared, pushed the victim to the floor and punched him in the face several times whilst Dys shouted aggressively at the victim. 

Whilst at the property, Dys spoke to her brother on the phone and told him to join them, which he did.  However, he did not join in the assault.  It was alleged by the victim that he was warned by the defendants not to call the police.  After they left the property, the victim telephoned a friend and told him what had happened.  The friend then called the police. 

The victim suffered bruises to his face consistent with having been struck repeatedly and injuries to his back consistent with having been caused by a struggle on the floor.  A pair of blood-stained jeans was found at the home of Louvel.  A spot of blood was later tested and found to be that of the victim. 

Louvel and Dys had originally been indicted for grave and criminal assault, to which they entered not guilty pleas.  However, after an Assize trial lasting three days, they were found not guilty of grave and criminal assault but guilty of common assault.  Whilst Dys was not physically involved in the assault it was the crown's case that she actively participated in the attack through her aggressive shouting. 

Details of Mitigation:

Remorse and regret although not of good character only minor offences in the last 10 years, strong letters from him and others before the Court, time on remand equivalent to sentence of 8 months and 19 days. 

Previous Convictions:

59 convictions, predominantly for larceny and motoring offences but also 3 for assault. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1A:

12 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1A:

A 12 month Probation Order with a 12 month Treatment Order.

Kataryzna Dys

First Indictment

1 count of:

Common assault (Count 1A).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty (Second Indictment, Count 1).  Not guilty (First Indictment, Count 1A).

Details of Offence:

See Louvel above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea to possession of cannabis, good character, offences out of character, letters before the Court, time on remand equivalent to a sentence of 4 months.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1A:

50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's imprisonment in default.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

20 hours' Community Service Order, consecutive to the First Indictment or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Total:  70 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month and 2 weeks' imprisonment in default. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1A:

20 hours' Community Service Order or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

20 hours' Community Service Order, consecutive to the First Indictment, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Total:  40 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's imprisonment in default. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Louvel.

Advocate O. A. Blakeley for Dys.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants stand to be sentenced for a common assault carried out as a common enterprise, and Dys for possession of a small personal quantity of cannabis.  The case of the Crown at the Assize was that the defendants had committed a grave and criminal assault involving a knife.  The defendants both accepted from the outset that the victim had been punched by Louvel but denied the use of the knife and they were acquitted of the more serious charge.  Although this was a common assault causing minor injuries, we agree with the Crown that it was a nasty attack carried out by surprise.  

2.        Louvel has, through drugs misuse, suffered mental health problems, and has an emotionally unstable personality disorder in which there is a marked tendency to act impulsively.  Although he has a bad record there have been no convictions for some 10 years but even so he is assessed at a high level of further offending.  Dys has no previous convictions and is assessed at a low risk of reoffending.  She continues to deny her guilt, blaming Louvel for the assault and apportioning some of the blame onto the victim.  The verdict of the Jury however, was that this was an assault carried out by way of a common enterprise and she did therefore play a part in this attack.  Louvel has already served a sentence equivalent of to 8  months and 19 days in custody and Dys the equivalent of a sentence of 4 months. 

3.        In terms of mitigation, we have listened to the addresses of counsel for both of the defendants.  In respect of Louvel, he has expressed remorse and regret for this assault; he has as we have said, admitted the common assault from the outset; although he does have these previous convictions there has been no real offending for the last 10 years for which he deserves credit.  And of course we have considered the letters that he and others have written and the references supplied. 

4.        In terms of Dys, again, she has admitted that a common assault took place from the outset, and she has also pleaded guilty at the outset to the possession of the cannabis.  She is a person of good character and therefore Mr Blakeley is right to say this offence was out of character.  Again we have considered her own letter, and the letters of support and references that have been passed to us but we do regret the fact that she has not expressed any remorse for the assault and the injuries caused to the victim. 

5.        Turning to Louvel, we bear in mind that he has been in prison, as we have said, for the equivalent of a sentence of 8 months and 19 days, and ordinarily in assault if this kind would, in our view, have justified a custodial sentence.  However, Mr Bell says that Mr Louvel would welcome the support of a Probation Order so that he can, in particular, carry out the action plan which is set out in detail in the probation report.  We think that this is the right way forward for the Court to deal with this matter, but we do emphasise that it is only because of the time he has already spent in custody.  As to the period of the probation, we do not see any point in it being insufficiently long to enable this action plan to be completed.  The very minimum would be a period of 9 months according to the Probation Department, but we think that 12 months is the appropriate period for the Probation Order. 

6.        As for Dys, we also take into account the fact that she has served the equivalent of 4 months' imprisonment, which would equate to 100 hours of community service.  In our view a total sentence of 6 months' imprisonment would have been the appropriate sentence for what the Jury found was an assault carried out by way of a common enterprise and that equates to 120 hours' community service.  As she has effectively done 100 of those hours, we are going to reduce the community service in relation to the common assault to 20 hours. 

7.        Therefore we sentence the defendants as follows. 

8.        Mr Louvel, in relation to the common assault you are sentenced to 12 months' probation subject to the usual conditions, but also to the condition that you will complete the action plan and the courses put forward in the probation report. 

9.        Miss Dys, in relation to the common assault you are sentenced to 20 hours' community service which is the equivalent to 2 weeks' imprisonment, and in relation to the possession of cannabis you are sentenced to 20 hours' community service, which is the equivalent to 2 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, and that makes a total of 40 hours' community service or the equivalent of 1 month's imprisonment. 

10.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

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