Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC042A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 February 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Stephen Shane De La Haye

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

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant took offence at the way that the victim spoke to him after bumping into the defendant at a public bar and spilling beer on him.  Both had been drinking.  While they spoke, the defendant adopted very aggressive body language towards the victim who attempted to retreat whilst shrugging.  The defendant then grabbed the victim around the neck and swept his legs from beneath him using a manoeuvre he had learned in Mixed Martial Arts training.  Under the defendant's weight and by the force of the manoeuvre, the victim was felled in instant to the floor, where the defendant briefly held him in a headlock then released him.  The victim's leg was broken and he could not walk.  The bar staff nonetheless forced him to hobble off the premises.  The defendant was arrested a week later and made fulsome admissions and apologies on being played CCTV footage of the incident.  The Crown accepted that notwithstanding the aggression shown, the injuries were not intended.

Details of Mitigation:

No previous convictions, relative youth, good work record, family support, plea, full cooperation and considerable remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Exclusion Order from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises for a period of 12 months from the date of release from custody sought.

Compensation Order of £4,000 to the victim sought, or 6 months' imprisonment in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Compensation Order of £5,000 to the victim made, or 6 months' imprisonment in default.

No Exclusion Order made.

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

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for committing a grave and criminal assault on Mr Forrest at the Mimosa Nightclub.  The defendant was at the bar and thought that Mr Forrest was trying to get to the bar ahead of him.  There was a verbal exchange, and thinking that Mr Forrest was about to attack him, the defendant used a technique he had learnt doing martial arts known as a leg-sweep, which he had been taught not to do outside the ring.  The weight of the two men propelled them to the floor with some force, where the defendant held Mr Forrest for a few moments in a submission headlock before the doormen removed Mr Forrest from the premises.

2.        The defendant says, and the Prosecution accept, that he never intended to cause Mr Forrest serious injury, but sadly that he did, with Mr Forrest breaking his leg in two places.  He has suffered two operations already and now faces a further operation.  He has been unable and will again be unable to work for periods of time and it is still unfortunately unclear whether he will make a full recovery. 

3.        The defendant has no convictions and has a good work record with a supportive family, many of whom are in Court today.  He has a fine athletics record representing the Island in many competitions.  Immediately after learning of the injuries that had been incurred he wrote a long letter of remorse to Mr Forrest, showing genuine concern for his welfare.  He is assessed by the Probation Department at a low rate of reconviction, posing no further risk of harm to the public.

4.        The Crown seek a custodial sentence of 12 months, an exclusion order and a compensation order of £4,000.  The defendant has substantial mitigation, some of which we have already mentioned.  He is a person of good character and he was only just 21 at the time of these offences, so he has youth on his side.  He had a good school and work record and a supportive family, and he was very cooperative with the Police.  He has shown genuine remorse and concern for Mr Forrest.

5.        Ordinarily an offence of this kind in a public place would lead to a custodial sentence, as a deterrent to others and notwithstanding the damage that might be done to a defendant's life and prospects.  However, we accept that this case is different, in that the Prosecution accept that the defendant's intentions were to defuse or prevent a fight, rather than to inflict injury.  But in using this manoeuvre he was reckless; indeed his plea has be accepted on the basis of recklessness.  That combined with the substantial mitigation available to him leads us to agree that the defendant should serve his sentence in the community.

6.        We are not going to impose an exclusion order as we do not think that is necessary in this case.  We agree that a compensation order should be made, and we note the guidance given in the UK by the Sentencing Guidelines Council - Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines, which we understand are regularly applied in the Magistrates Court.  For a single break of a fibular or femur/tibia the starting point is £2,500 and £3,800 respectively, assuming substantial recovery.  Mr Forrest does not yet know what the long term impairment may or may not be and he has of course in this case suffered two breaks.  In our view the amount of compensation put forward by the Prosecution is too low.

7.        Mr De La Haye we therefore sentence you as follows.  You are sentenced to serve community service of 180 hours, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, and you are to pay the victim, Mr Forrest, compensation of £5,000 payable as to £3,000 within 14 days and £2,000 within a year, with a sentence in default of 6 months.

Authorities

Sentencing Guidelines Council - Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines - Definitive Guideline.

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

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Baldwin [2006] JRC 188.