Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - assault.

[2013]JRC025

Royal Court

(Samedi)

1 February 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Cristiano José Vieira

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

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, the defendant went to a laundrette whose proprietor (Mr Mendes) he believed to owe him money.  He wrapped his belt around his fist so as to present the buckle as a weapon.  He swung the belt above his head and hit Mr Mendes with it.  He also bit and spat at him.  It was accepted by the Court that the bruises on Miss Figueira (the laundrette attendant) were caused in the scuffle that followed.  The defendant was verbally abusive including to the police who were called and restrained him.  The proprietor suffered lacerations and abrasions and the trauma of regular testing for blood-borne infection for months thereafter. 

Details of Mitigation:

Plea: diagnosed with serious mental illness for the first time whilst on remand and had responded well to treatment. 

Previous Convictions:

Grave and criminal assault, attempted robbery.

Conclusions:

Total: 18 months' youth detention.

Exclusion Order sought for a period of 12 months from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7th category licensed premises from the date of his release from custody ,excluding the "Cineworld" Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, the Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Jersey Opera House.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 18 months' youth detention. 

Exclusion Order made for a period of 12 months from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises from the date of his release from custody, excluding the "Cineworld" Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, the Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Jersey Opera House.

No recommendation for deportation made.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You came to Jersey for a year in 2004 and then you returned in December 2009, when you were 17.  You came to join your parents who have been here for 16 years, but you were brought up in Madeira by your grandparents.  Since coming to Jersey, you have a bad record.  You were convicted in April 2010 of a grave and criminal assault on your father, for which you were placed on probation, and ordered to do community service.  You failed to comply with those orders.  You then appeared before this Court in September 2010 for attempted robbery, which involved attacking a 69 year old man.  You were sentenced to 2 years' youth detention for that offence and 6 months for the breach of community service and probation.  You were released on licence on 2^nd February, 2012, but you breached the terms of that licence.  Then you committed the present offences on 3^rd July. 

2.        We accept your version of events in relation to the assault on Miss Figueira, and we will sentence on that basis.  But there is no disputing what you did to Mr Mendes; you attacked him with a large buckled belt, causing him abrasions and lacerations, you bit him and you spat at him.  You also behaved very aggressively when the police arrived. 

3.        In mitigation we take into account the fact that you have pleaded guilty and most importantly that you are still only 20 so that Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies.  We have also read the letters from your family and the reports but, subject to what I am about to say, there is little else to be said in your favour.  But since being on remand, you have been diagnosed as suffering from a psychotic illness, probably Paranoid Schizophrenia.  The psychiatrist at the prison has prescribed medication and this has helped.  The advice that we have received from the papers is that as long as you keep taking your medication, there are better prospects of your not reoffending. 

4.        Your advocate has urged us not to send you to youth detention.  He says that the terms of Article 4 are not fulfilled because of the prospect that, with medication, you will behave better in future.  The difficulty is that you apparently have no insight into or understanding of your medical condition and there must, therefore be a real risk that you will not continue taking your medication on release. 

5.        In all the circumstances we find that there has been a history of non-compliance with non-custodial sentences and that you are unable or unwilling to respond to them.  So, given your previous offending and given the circumstances of these offences, we think there is no alternative to youth detention. 

6.        On Count 1; 3 months' youth detention; that is reduced from the Crown's conclusions because we accept your version of events.  On Count 2; 18 months' youth detention.  They are concurrent, so that is 18 months' youth detention in all. 

7.        We have read that you have been attending education classes in prison for help with reading and writing and other things.  We urge you to continue to do that for your remaining time in custody as this will help you find employment when you come out.  When you do come out you will be subject to supervision by the Probation Service.  We urge you to take advantage of all the help they can give and that your family have said that they are willing to give.  The really important thing is that when you come out, you keep taking your medication; we hope you understand that. 

8.        We are going to make the Exclusion Order as requested by the Crown in the terms that they have suggested because drink played a part in this offending and, as your advocate said, it may help prevent you drinking when you come out.  That order is for 12 months and it applies to the premises asked for by the Crown. 

9.        Lastly we come to the question of whether to recommend deportation.  We are quite satisfied that your continued presence in the Island would be detrimental, given the offending you have already committed and the high risk of reoffending as described in the probation report.  But we must balance against that your rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  This has been a very finely balanced decision.  When we first read the papers all the members of the Court thought there was no alternative but to recommend deportation.  But we have taken into account the diagnosis of your mental condition and we are quite satisfied that the best hope for the future is that that condition is treated; and to do that successfully you will benefit from the support of your family and of all the agencies in Jersey.  We accept that if you return to Madeira there is little family support, just your aging grandmother, and although of course the medical facilities there are excellent, they will not have the familiarity with your case that exists here and the support of the Probation Service as well.  We have just been persuaded that it would not be proportionate to recommend your deportation today.  But your own advocate accepted, quite rightly, that this was your last chance.  We want to emphasise that as strongly as we can.  If you commit any further serious offence, we can see no alternative but deportation.  You have been given every chance; it is up to you to take advantage of it so, we repeat, keeping taking your medication.  If you fail to do so, you may well end up being deported. 

Authorities

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

European Convention on Human Rights.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Marquer-v-AG [1999] JLR N 14A.

AG-v-Corcoran 1996/197.

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

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

MM (Zimbabwe)-v-Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 279.