Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - assault - grave and criminal assault.

[2012]JRC122

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 June 2012

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Philip Pereira Da Silva

Alan Singh

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

Philip Pereira Da Silva

First Indictment

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Assault (Count 1).

Age: 25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At around 2am on 13^th November, 2012, Da Silva was in the area of the Weighbridge.  He was drunk and was abusive to a police officer who told him on several occasions to leave the area. 

At around 3am Mr Howes ("Howes"), Mr Da Assuncao ("Da Assuncao") and others were in Conway Street when they collided with Da Silva.  An argument ensued and blows were exchanged between Da Silva and Howes before Da Silva made his way towards Broad Street.  No charges result from this incident. 

Howes, Da Assuncao and their friends then walked towards the Royal Square.  As they did so Da Silva shouted abuse at them from Broad Street saying, "You're going to get it".  The group walked along Snow Hill, Colomberie and Don Road.  Da Silva followed them and, whilst he did so, he telephoned Singh alleging that he had been assaulted (by the victims) and asking for assistance. 

Outside the Don Inn, Howes heard the sound of running.  He looked back and saw Da Silva and Singh running towards him.  Da Silva punched Howes to the head and face several times.  Howes hit back in self defence and both men fell to the ground.  Howes got up and tried to walk away.  Da Silva punched him again knocking him to the floor.  He then punched him, kicked him, and stamped on him.  Throughout this attack Singh prevented Howes' friends coming to his assistance (1^st Indictment, Count 2).  When Da Assuncao tried to pull Da Silva off Howes, Singh punched him in the face (1^st Indictment, Count 1). 

The Police arrived and Da Silva and Singh were arrested.  Da Silva and Singh were indicted before the Royal Court on 17^th February, 2012, and entered guilty pleas.  The defendants were admitted to bail pending sentence. 

On 8^th April, 2012, Howes was at the Weighbridge.  Police officers saw Da Silva approach Howes and punch him once in the face (2^nd Indictment, Count 1).  This further offending took place whilst Da Silva was on bail, and in breach of a curfew condition. 

Details of Mitigation:

Both of the defendants entered guilty pleas; neither had the benefit of youth or good character. 

Previous Convictions:

21 previous convictions, including one for common assault and one for grave and criminal assault. 

Conclusions:

The Crown had regard to the circumstances of the offending of both of the defendants including the aggravating nature of the second assault, the mitigation and the content of the reports before the Court and moved as follows:-

First Indictment

Count 2:

18 months' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2 of the First Indictment

Total: 2 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Da Silva had been drunk and aggressive.  He had ben insulting to the police.  After an altercation with the group Da Silva had followed them, called for assistance and then attacked his victim.  It was an attack that included punching, kicking and stamping.  Singh had prevented the victim's friends coming to his assistance and assaulted one of them when he had tried to do so.  There may have been some provocation involved from what had happened earlier but the defence was not open to Da Silva because he had followed the victim for some distance before assaulting him.  The second assault was aggravated because it was committed when Da Silva was on bail. 

Conclusions granted.

Alan Singh

First Indictment

1 count of:	Assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).

Age: 26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Da Silva above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Da Silva above.

Previous Convictions:

5 previous convictions, including one for common assault. 

Conclusions:

The Crown had regard to the circumstances of the offending of both of the defendants including the aggravating nature of the second assault, the mitigation and the content of the reports before the Court and moved as follows:-

First Indictment

Count 1:	90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment in default.
Count 2:	210 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment in default.

Total: 210 hours' Community Service Order. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Da Silva had been drunk and aggressive.  He had ben insulting to the police.  After an altercation with the group Da Silva had followed them, called for assistance and then attacked his victim.  It was an attack that included punching, kicking and stamping.  Singh had prevented the victim's friends coming to his assistance and assaulted one of them when he had tried to do so.  There may have been some provocation involved from what had happened earlier but the defence was not open to Da Silva because he had followed the victim for some distance before assaulting him.  The second assault was aggravated because it was committed when Da Silva was on bail. 

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate C. R. Baglin for Da Silva.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Singh.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is quite clear that you Da Silva, were looking for trouble that evening.  You were aggressive and insulting towards a police officer at the Weighbridge, and after an altercation with Mr Howes in Conway Street, you followed his group up Snow Hill and you telephoned Mr Singh for reinforcement.  The two of you then caught up with the other group near the Don Inn and you attacked the victim punching him to the head and face more than once. You ended up punching him several times when he was curled up on the ground and you kicked him twice to the body whilst he was on the ground and you stamped on his knees. You Singh prevented the victim's friends from coming to his help and you punched one of his group once to the left eye.  And then on 8^th April, 2012, whilst on bail to this Court, you Da Silva, saw the victim near the Weighbridge and you went up to him and punched him once to the face. 

2.        Now Da Silva, in mitigation you have pleaded guilty but you were not cooperative at the time.  Your counsel has urged upon us that there was an element of provocation and there may have been in Conway Street; but after that you deliberately followed the victim for a considerable period and you called for reinforcements.  So we do not consider that provocation is in any way helpful to you in this case in justifying what you did.  The facts of this case are completely different from the cases of Binet and Balastratis which your Advocate referred to. 

3.        We have read your letter and we have read the references and these show that there is another side to you, different from the bullying and aggressive one you showed on the night in question.  We also the note the progress you have made in prison and we commend you for that and we hope that, when you are released,  what you have done there will stand you in good stead for your release.  But you are assessed as at high risk of reoffending, your counsel has very realistically accepted there is no alternative to prison and this Court has repeatedly said that violence on the streets of St Helier will be dealt with severely.  In your case you have previous convictions for violence as well. 

4.        We have no doubt that the conclusions are correct.  We have listened carefully to what Mr Baglin has said but, in particular, the second offence was committed whilst on bail and in breach of a curfew so that these aggravating features entirely justify the 6 months for that and 18 months is the minimum sentence which is proper for the assault you carried out.

5.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on Count 2 on the First Indictment; 18 months' imprisonment, on Count 1 of the Second Indictment; 6 months' imprisonment, but they are consecutive because they were completely separate, that makes a total of 2 years' imprisonment. 

6.        Now in your case Singh, there is more mitigation.  We note that you have kept out of trouble for some 7 years now and you only have one previous conviction for assault and that was back when you were 14 years of age, when you were bound over; so it cannot have been too serious.  We note you have a good work record, you have pleaded guilty in this case, you are at low risk of reoffending and your involvement in this case was at a lower level than that of your co-accused.  So all in all we are content to accept the conclusions of the Crown that you do not have to go to prison for this, but you must realise you are quite fortunate not to be going to prison for a grave and criminal assault of this nature. 

7.        The sentence in your case is on Count 1; 90 hours' Community Service Order, on Count 2; 210 hours' Community Service Order, which we say is the equivalent of 15 months' imprisonment which would have been the sentence if it had been prison.  We make those concurrent, so that is a total of 210 hours' Community Service Order. 

8.        I must warn you that if you do not carry them out, if you do not turn up exactly when you are told and do exactly what you are told by the community service officer, or if you commit any further offences, then you will be brought back here and then almost certainly the Court would have to activate a prison sentence.  That is the sentence of the Court. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.