Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - contempt of court.

[2012]JRC019

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 January 2012

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Olsen

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Jon Donachie

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

First Indictment:

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Second Indictment:

1 count of:

Contempt of Court (Count 1).

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See AG-v-Hogg [2011] JRC 223, being the sentencing of Donachie's co-accused in relation to the First Indictment - Count 1. 

Donachie and his co-accused met whilst serving prisoners at La Moye.  Both were released on licence.  On New Year's Eve both consumed substantial quantities of alcohol at Donachie's home address which he shared with his mother and mother's boyfriend.  Both defendants were aggressive towards the mother's boyfriend and threatened him.  They thought the victim was calling the police but in fact he was calling his brother.  Both in breach of curfew licence.  Both defendants assaulted the victim by punching him the head and face.  First blow was by Donachie.  Donachie then hit the victim over the head with an empty wine bottle which shattered.  Caused a 4 cm laceration requiring six stitches plus other minor cuts. 

Victim's brother arrived at the property to assist and remove his brother whom he noted was covered in blood and was being punched and kicked by both defendants.  Offence was fuelled by excessive alcohol and was unprovoked.  Case presented as a joint enterprise.  Aggravated by breach of curfew licences.  Hogg had pleaded not guilty and had been found guilty by jury. 

In the light of the Court's sentencing in the co-accused case which fixed a starting point of 3 years, the Crown had taken a similar starting point for fixing the sentencing point in Donachie's case.  The Court did not refer to a starting point in its conclusions.  Whilst on bail awaiting sentencing Donachie left the Island without the permission of the Attorney General/Court and did not return for the sentencing date.  Sentencing in relation to co-accused proceeded.  Arrest warrant issued and Donachie returned on that warrant.  Entered guilty plea on first presentation to the Court on Second Indictment.  It was a deliberate breach of the Court's Orders. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Main mitigating factors was guilty plea which was entered on Indictment albeit on a factual basis unacceptable to the Crown.  Only following the successful trial of co-accused did Donachie change instructions and accept the Crown's factual basis.  No credit for youth and not of good character.  Blatant breach of Court's Orders and, therefore, consecutive sentence sought for the contempt count. 

Defence

Defendant accepted the seriousness of his position.  Offence not premeditated but arose out of loss of temper, spur of the moment.  No lasting injury to victim.  Had apologised to the victim which apology had been accepted.  Suggested he also had sustained a serious head injury by being struck by bottle but was not suggesting that this was the actions of the victim.  Unclear as to who he was suggesting was responsible for injury but did not seek to go behind the Crown's summary of facts.  Guilty plea. Remorse and letter of apology and character references provided.  It suggested a lower sentence for contempt as less serious than other case.  Psychiatric report produced which suggested had been suffering from depression.  Sought a non-custodial sentence on compassionate grounds. 

Previous Convictions:

Two convictions for 26 offences including possession of offensive weapon, breach of the peace and 24 charges of larceny as a servant. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment:

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Total:  2 years 6 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Donachie to be sentenced for a count of grave and criminal assault which was very nasty assault committed by Donachie and Hogg, which was prolonged and frightening.  The Court had listened very carefully to all of the submissions and the Court concluded that the Crown's conclusions were absolutely correct and were a proper punishment for what Donachie had done. 

Donachie had absconded at a time when he had pleaded guilty but the facts had still not been agreed.  If there was a distinction between a not guilty and a guilty the Crown's view was little weight should be given to that position.  The Court referred to the case of Harrison-v-AG where the Court of Appeal had said that the 6 months was the appropriate sentence where the defendant had  absconded but had spent a time in custody in Spain awaiting extradition.  Donachie had not come back voluntarily.  The Court felt able to slightly reduce the Crown's conclusions for the contempt to reflect the position that it was easy to return somebody from the UK than from a foreign jurisdiction. 

First Indictment:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment:

Count 1:

4 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Total:  2 years and 4 months' imprisonment.  

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on a count of grave and criminal assault.  It was a thoroughly nasty assault which you and Mr Hogg committed.  It was clearly a prolonged and frightening attack for the victim as a result of which he suffered injuries.  The Court has listened very carefully to everything which your Counsel has said in connection with the assault. 

2.        We consider the conclusions are absolutely correct and that 2 years' imprisonment for that particular offence is a minimum and reflects indeed a proper punishment for what you have done.  Accordingly on that count on the Indictment you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. 

3.        You absconded from the Island having pleaded guilty at a time when the facts upon which that plea was to be entered had not been agreed with the prosecution.  To that extent therefore if there is a distinction between absconding where there is a not guilty plea and absconding where there is a guilty plea, relatively little weight is to be given to that difference.  But we do note that in the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 the Court of Appeal was there indicating that 6 months would have been an appropriate sentence on the facts of that case where the defendant had gone to Spain and extradition from that country was clearly more difficult than bringing you back from the United Kingdom on a warrant.  Nonetheless the Court is in no doubt that you would not have come back had the authorities not been aware where you were.  We are going to mark that difference between Spain and returning you from the United Kingdom and accordingly we sentence you to 4 months' imprisonment on the charge of contempt of Court.  That will run consecutively so the total is 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Harrison -v- AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Donachie [2009] JRC 229.

AG-v-Hogg [2011] JRC 223.

AG-v-McCabe [2006] JRC 069.

AG-v-De Guelle [2006] JRC 114.

AG-v-Burke [2008] JRC 143.