Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2012]JRC003

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 January 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Brendan Peter Monks

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 24^th September, 2011, Monks was standing outside a nightclub in St Helier.  At the same time the victim, who is profoundly deaf, was leaving the nightclub with friends, some of whom are also deaf.  Both Monks and the victim had been drinking alcohol during the evening. 

Whilst standing outside the nightclub, the victim alleged that his friend told him that Monks, who was standing behind them, was calling them names.  The victim's friend then turned around and said to Monks "if you say that again he'll kill you".  The victim turned and laughed at Monks but as he turned around again, the victim's friend told him that Monks had said it again.  The victim therefore approached Monks with an open palmed gesture in order to ask him to "leave it".  Monks punched out at the victim twice to the head area, at least one of which connected.  The victim fell to the ground, lost consciousness and was taken to hospital.  Whilst at the hospital he was sedated and kept in for observation but was discharged without any physical injury.  Monks was located and arrested at the scene shortly after the incident. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, record, element of provocation, lack of clarity over the circumstances, no injuries other than loss of consciousness and quick recovery, good character, degree of remorse, good employment and family support, low risk of re-offending. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

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

Compensation Order in the amount of £114.98 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court reiterated the Court's usual policy that drunken violence on the streets of St Helier will usually result in a custodial sentence.  Despite being having a good deal of personal mitigation, the Court stressed that this was not the reason Monks was spared a custodial sentence, it was the lack of clarity regarding the circumstances of the offence. 

The Court stated that if the victim wished to bring a civil claim for loss of earnings he could do so but the criminal matter ended that day and any further compensation would not be held over. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 6 months from 5^th January, 2012, from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises.

Compensation Order in the amount of £114.98 ordered.

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced for an offence of grave and criminal assault which was committed by you on 25^th September.  The assault took place at approximately 1:50am.  It took place outside a nightclub in St Helier.  The Court has said on many occasions that drunken violence on the streets of St Helier is completely unacceptable and the usual policy, unless there are some exceptional circumstances, is to send defendants to prison for an offence of this kind.  

2.        The Court has been considering this case very anxiously.  The Crown has mentioned the cases of AG-v-Richomme [2006] JRC 068 and AG-v-De Carteret [2009] JRC 242.  Your counsel has pointed out, rightly, that those two cases involved rather different circumstances.  In Richomme there was the case of several punches and a kick to the region of the head whilst the victim was on the ground, and in the case of De Carteret, the victim suffered two fractures to his jaw and was in hospital for four days. 

3.        From the perspective of the victim in this case; who was a vulnerable man, because he was deaf, he had done nothing wrong.  It may be that he had drunk more than was appropriate; it appears that you too had drunk more than was appropriate.  We do not have the statements in the case and the Crown's summary of facts suggests that the circumstances of the incident are unclear and it is really only for this reason that the Court considers that a custodial sentence can be avoided in this case.  There is no evidence of any lasting injury caused to the victim and there is no evidence indeed of any temporary injury other than the fact that at some point he seems to have lost consciousness but he made a quick recovery.  There seems to have been some element of provocation from, what I have described as an unhelpful contribution from, the friend of the victim.  At the end of the day it is this lack of clarity as to what actually took place that evening that is the reason that the Court is going to avoid a custodial sentence. 

4.        Nonetheless, there was violence, there was a punch thrown which connected with the victim and you should have known better and you should have done better in the circumstances in which you found yourself.  If the penalty which is now going to be imposed seems high to you it is because the Court expects high standards, particularly of people who are in professional positions and you failed in those standards on that occasion.  The Court considers this case could have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court but it is before us, and because it is, we are obliged to consider and have considered carefully, the Court's usual policy for cases of assault. 

5.        What we have decided to do in this case is to sentence you to 150 hours' community service and the alternative would be 9 months' imprisonment.  We are also going to impose an Exclusion Order as requested by the Crown, but not for that period.  The Exclusion Order will be for a period of 6 months, that you are excluded from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises for 6 months from today. 

6.        We also make a Compensation Order in favour of the victim in the sum of £114.98.  We are not going to go further than that.  If the victim has a civil claim he can bring it and it is not a matter which is going to be dealt with before the criminal Courts.  To the extent that that may seem hard on the victim, the compensation claim has simply been received too late and the criminal Court process is going to finish today.  It has already continued since September and it is time it came to a conclusion. 

7.        It is said by your counsel and in your references that you will not be before the Court again.  You are very fortunate to have escaped a custodial sentence and it arises because of the lack of clarity around the circumstances of the incident, but it is certainly true that you have a good deal of other personal mitigation which we take into account but it is not the reason that you escaped the custodial sentence. 

Authorities

AG-v-Richomme [2006] JRC 068.

AG-v-De Carteret [2009] JRC 242.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.