Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - assault - breach of probation order.

[2012]JRC115

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 June 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

F

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

Age:  17.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had been drinking at home and then continued drinking at various establishments in St Helier.  Whilst walking home, words were exchanged/banter with two older males.  Without warning or provocation the defendant reacted with violence.  Punched first male to the left side of the face on the cheekbone.  Sustained split lip and swelling to the left eye and cheek.  This victim turned away before any further violence was inflicted (Count 1). 

The second male was then struck by the defendant to the face using his elbow ("chicken wing blow") and then punched to the face three to five times.  The victim was stunned by the blow from the elbow and then collapsed unconscious to the ground.  He was left lying in the middle of the road whilst the defendant and his two friends run off.  This victim suffered bruising to the brain and a fractured skull.  Taken to hospital and transferred to the Wessex neurological Centre at Southampton where he had to undergo immediate surgery to remove the blood clot which was compressing the brain and to correct the associated fracture.  Kept unconscious for some five days.  Some nine months later he had made a good recovery and the prognosis was positive.  The victim personal statement was before the Court setting out the impact the assault had upon him. 

The defendant was arrested and interviewed under caution.  Initially denied any involvement and claimed to be elsewhere when the incident occurred.  Eventually made a full confession. 

Despite the defendant's age the Crown's position is that offence too serious for anything other than a custodial sentence and this pursuant to paragraph 2(c) of article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  The Crown has had regard to the relevant factors in Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111. 

Breach offences:

Four motoring offences arising out of the taking without permission of a motorbike which the defendant subsequently crashed into a wall. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Eventually cooperated and made full confession.  Guilty plea entered on second appearance before Magistrate's Court.  Not a first offender but record limited to four motoring offences dealt with on one occasion.  Mitigation available from social enquiry report.  Youth. 

The Defence

Had not intended to cause such serious injuries.  Remorse/regret.  Youth.  No previous for violence/out of character.  Guilty pleas, offered apology.  Complicated issues in his background.  Had secured job/apprenticeship.  The Court invited to give defendant a chance and impose direct alternative to custody. 

Previous Convictions:

One conviction for TADA, no driving license disqualified by reason of age, no insurance and careless driving. 

Conclusions:

Breach

The defendant re-offended within three weeks of the original Order being made by the Youth Court.  However, it transpired that he had been permitted to continue with the Probation Order and had completed it satisfactorily.  In those circumstances the Crown did not seek any separate penalties. 

No penalty sought for breach of Probation Order imposed by the Youth Court dated 23^rd August, 2011. 

Total: 18 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defendant to be sentenced for two offences of violence: common assault consisting of one punch and grave and criminal assault consisting of blow with elbow and three to five punches.  Offences committed early hours of the morning in public.  Defendant was with three people and the victims were two slightly older males.  Court satisfied that there had been no relevant provocation which could have justified the violence.  Defendant was drunk.  No serious injury to the first victim of the assault but very serious injuries to the second victim who was aged 23.  Could quite easily have been facing a manslaughter charge.  Fortunately the victim has made good progress.  The Court then quoted at length from the victim personal statement.  Court re-stated its normal policy in that drunken violence in public at night resulted in immediate custodial sentence.  No question had defendant not been 17 then he would have gone to prison.  Because of his age the Court was required to consider if there was any other way of dealing with him.  Considers whether a non-custodial sentence would be justified given that the offence was so serious.  The Court was out for some time and the defendant had come very close to an immediate custodial sentence.  On this occasion the Court was going to give him the benefit of his youth and imposed a Community Service Order.  It was going to be a long Community Service Order to reflect his culpability for the offences and recognition from the Court as to how serious it had viewed the offences.  It was only his youth and because he had a supportive family, that he was being given this chance.  Had an opportunity to put his life in order. 

No separate penalty for breach of Probation Order imposed by the Youth Court dated 23^rd August, 2011. 

Total: 300 hours' Community Service Order.

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here facing two charges, one involving a punch to the face and the other a grave and criminal assault involving the use of your forearm or elbow and three to five punches.  The offences took place in the early hours of 11^th September in a public place in Plat Douet Road.  You were in a group of three people, the victims were walking and there were two of them.  There was no relevant provocation which justified the assault.  You were drunk.  There was no serious injury caused to the first victim but the second victim, who was 23, suffered very serious head injuries which required that he had urgent treatment at the Wessex Neurological Centre in Southampton.  The injuries were such that he could have suffered serious permanent damage.  He might even have died, in which case you would have been facing a manslaughter charge.  Fortunately he appears to be making good progress.

2.        I expect you have read his victim personal statement which was made just over a month ago.  He says "the assault has affected me in many ways, from being bed-bound for so long and I was very down in my mood.  It was not the kind of thing, being assaulted, that I have ever been involved in before, especially in Jersey.  I felt it was such a safe place.  I am a musician and write my own music.  Since the assault I lost the ability to write music.  Before, something would pop into my head and although things have improved and I have started writing again, it is not easy for me now.  Music is very important to me and I would like to make a career out of writing and playing music.  I am still slightly confused and angry about the whole situation because I spend a lot of time wondering if the ones who assaulted me will learn from this and have any kind of remorse for what they have done".  And he goes on to explain the other things which have happened to him since the assault. 

3.        Drunken assaults in a public place, at night, almost inevitably leave the Court in the position of imposing a custodial sentence.  And frankly, had you not been the age you were, there would have been no question about it in this case.  It is only because you are only 17 that we are charged to consider whether there is any other way of dealing with you.  It is clear that you do not have a history of not responding to non-custodial sentences so the only question for us is whether or not the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified and we have been out considering this for some time because we have had, as you would expect, a serious discussion about that.  You have come very close to having a custodial sentence imposed but on this occasion we are going to give you the benefit of your youth and we are going to impose a period of community service.  The Community Service Order that we are going to impose is going to be a long Community Service Order.  It reflects the culpability which you have for these offences and it reflects recognition from this Court about the impact of your assault on the victim which is serious.  It is really only because you have your youth, you have a supportive family and you have the opportunity of putting your life in order that you are being given this chance. 

4.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 120 hours' community service.  That is to run concurrently with Count 2 on which you are sentenced to 300 hours' community service.  Although that is reflective normally of a higher sentence of youth detention than 18 months' for which the Crown moved, we think 300 hours is the right reflection of the sanction which ought to be imposed here, given the injuries which the victim has suffered.  But we would say that the alternative would have been 18 months' youth detention, if we had been imposing youth detention.  There is no separate penalty in relation to the breach of the previous orders. 

5.        Now I want you to appreciate that if you do not perform the terms of your Community Service Order that you will be brought back to this Court and it is very likely indeed that you will then be sentenced to youth detention. 

Authorities

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

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.