Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - assault - grave and criminal assault.

[2012]JRC123

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 June 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Vinson Thomas

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

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant and his wife ("the victim") have been married for 14 years, they have two children aged 6 and 12.

On the morning of 28^th December, 2011, the defendant and the victim were in bed together.  The defendant began playfully pinching and poking the victim, this escalated until it started to hurt and she asked him to stop.   The defendant then suggested that the victim should pinch him.  When she did so, he responded by slapping her across the head and face with an open hand several times and then grabbed forcefully by the arms, digging his nails into her skin and scratching her, before pulling her off the bed (Count 1). 

On 31^st January, 2012, the victim and the defendant, who had been drinking, picked up their children from school.  The family went to a restaurant where they had a meal and the defendant drank a bottle of wine.  On the way home the defendant demanded to be allowed to drive the car, when the victim refused to stop, the defendant began shouting at her and the children.  Upon arriving home the defendant entered the property and locked the door leaving the victim and both children outside.  The family remained outside the property for around 15 minutes during which time the defendant shouted abuse at them.  The family discovered the back door was not locked and managed to gain access into the building. Inside the building the defendant continued with his aggressive behaviour and the victim threatened to call the police.  The defendant snatched the victim's mobile telephone out of her hand, she then tried to dial 999 on the house telephone but the defendant unplugged it.  The victim took the children up to one of the bedrooms.  The defendant followed the victim up the stairs continuing to shout abuse at her saying "If you want to die, I'll help you, I'll show you how to do it". 

The defendant then took hold of the scarf the victim was wearing and pulled it before tying it to the top of the bed.  He then went to the other end of the bed and pulled on the victim's legs causing the scarf to tighten around her neck.  The knot tying the scarf to the bed came undone and the defendant then took hold of the scarf and pulled it tightly around the victim's neck causing her to choke and become unconscious.  When the victim regained consciousness she heard the defendant telling the children that she was only acting and not dying (Count 2).  The following day, after the defendant had gone to work the victim reported both assaults to the police.   

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas. Cooperation with the police.  Previous good character.  The defendant had already taken steps to address the underlying causes of the offending. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

The Crown had regard for all the circumstances of the offending and the mitigation available to the defendant and moved:-

Total: 21 months' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 12 months sought from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, The Jersey Art's Centre, the Jersey Airport, the Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Both assaults had taken place in the presence of the defendant's children; the Court viewed this as an aggravating factor.  In the second assault the victim had been strangled until she was unconscious and this would have been terrifying.  The Court noted the fact that the guilty pleas were entered at the earliest possible stage, the defendant's previous good character and remorse. 

The public interest required the Court to demonstrate that domestic violence was just as serious, if not more serious, than violence in a public place.  A woman's home should be a place of safety.  In passing sentence the Court would always focus on the hardship caused to the victims and not the offender.  The Court therefore could not impose a non-custodial sentence. However, having regard to the mitigation available to the defendant, the Court would vary the Crown's conclusions slightly.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment. 

No Exclusion Order made.

Mrs S. O'Donnell, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.  James for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.             You are here on charges of assaulting your wife twice, each time to the knowledge of your children, which is an aggravating factor because of the damage that witnessing domestic violence causes to children.  On the first occasion you slapped her about the face and on the second you pulled a scarf tightly around her neck causing her to choke and to lose consciousness briefly.  It must have been terrifying for her.  Although she no longer supports the prosecution, she remains frightened that you may repeat your violence towards her. 

2.             Advocate James has spoken most eloquently in mitigation and there is much that can be said on your behalf.  You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that stands you in good stead.  You are of good character and you have no previous convictions at the age of 42.  We have read the references, we accept that you are remorseful for what you have done, but your problem is alcohol.  You have been taking steps to address that problem and the other causes that have been referred to and we commend you for that.  All in all she has put forward much mitigation on your behalf and the Court has considered it very carefully. 

3.             But we repeat what the Court has said on previous occasions about domestic violence, namely that there is a public interest which requires the Court to demonstrate that domestic assaults are just as serious as those in a public place; that a woman's home should be a place of safety and security for her, not a place where she finds her partner threatening her and causing her to be in fear; and that offenders can expect the Court to focus on the victims rather than the hardships and the difficulties of the offenders. 

4.             So we have carefully considered everything that Advocate James has put most persuasively before us, but we cannot proceed by way of a non-custodial penalty.  However, to reflect the efforts that you have made to address the problems and your undoubted remorse, we do think we can reduce the conclusions slightly by making the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive. 

5.             The sentence of the Court is on Count 1; 3 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment but that is concurrent, making a total sentence of 18 months.  We do not think it necessary to make an Exclusion Order given the background to this case for the reasons your Advocate has said. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Da Silva [2011] JRC 113.

AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104.

AG-v- Barwise [2009] JRC 182.

AG-v-Barnes [2011] JRC 150.