Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC122

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 June 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew John Elliott

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

Age:  49.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Elliott admitted a single count of grave and criminal assault on his 20-year old daughter, in the family home - a more unusual case of domestic violence.  Elliott was setting up a laptop computer; the daughter offered to help which he saw as interference; a discussion turned into an argument then into a physical altercation, pushing and shoving each other.  Elliott had drunk 3-4 pints of cider, lost his temper and gave the daughter a "backhander", striking her jaw and causing her to fall.  The situation subsided but flared up minutes later.  During the ensuing struggle Elliott had a hand on the daughter's neck, caused back of the head to strike a door, then thrust her into her bedroom causing her to fall and strike her head on the metal bedframe.  The daughter grabbed a pair of scissors, threatened to self-harm if Elliott continued the assault, then self-inflicted superficial incised wound to her neck.  The daughter said she feared she might choke or black-out during the assault.  The mother took her to A & E, detained overnight with suspected fracture of the jaw, released home the next day when X-ray was negative, swelling only.  The assault constituted a breach of the trust implicit between father and daughter. 

Details of Mitigation:

Elliott was polite and compliant on arrest, made admissions in interview and pleaded guilty on Indictment on a basis acceptable to the Crown.  Expressed remorse at sentencing.  Injuries to daughter were relatively minor and would have no lasting physical effect on her.  Elliott was an industrious, somewhat private man who was effectively of previous good character.  Continuous work history.  Never applied for bail so remained in custody throughout (resulting in loss of employment). 

Previous Convictions:

Two minor motoring-related offences as a teenager had attracted small fines, therefore treated as a man of previous good character.

Conclusions:

The Crown, proposing that domestic violence assault on a daughter should be treated similarly to assault on a wife or partner, moved for a custodial sentence in view of the breach of trust and the inexcusable continuation of the assault. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed that the same sentencing principles should apply for assault on a daughter as on a wife.  The Court formed the view that the victim, taller than Elliott, was not entirely without fault.  Because of the time spent in custody, equivalent to just less than 9 months' imprisonment, the Court found it possible to depart from the usual principles and imposed a non-custodial sentence. 

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for committing a grave and criminal assault on his daughter, who was 20 at the time, in their home.  The assault took place after a heated argument had started between them, which turned into a physical altercation with the defendant and his daughter pushing and shoving each other around.  The defendant ended up giving his daughter a back handed punch, he says to keep her away.  A few minutes later the altercation erupted again with more pushing and shoving, during which the defendant held his daughter by the throat for a minute or so, again he says to keep her away, rather than to throttle her.  She hit her head on the back of the door as a consequence; the daughter felt she was going to choke.  The altercation continued into her bedroom where she fell against a metal bed hitting her head.  Hysterical and desperate to get away his daughter grabbed a pair of scissors, holding them to her throat making a superficial cut, saying she would cut her throat if he did not leave her alone.  He did desist and indeed he helped treat her out of concern for the cut to her throat. 

2.        His wife had been present during this incident but had not intervened for fear of making it worse.  She drove her daughter to hospital.  It was thought that the daughter may have suffered a fracture of the jaw but this transpired not to be the case, although she had suffered bruising and abrasions consistent with such an assault.  It is fair to make the point that the daughter is marginally taller than the defendant, well-built and in the words of Mr Landick "no shrinking violet". 

3.        It is clear from the Social Enquiry Report that there are difficult family relationship issues at play here which need not be aired in open Court.  The daughter has returned to live in Wales from where the family came, and the defendant's marriage, we understand, remains intact.  The defendant has worked all of his life and has a good record.  He is assessed at a low risk of reoffending.  He has been in custody for some time and served the equivalent of a sentence of just under 9 months. 

4.        Domestic violence is taken seriously by the Courts, as the Deputy Bailiff said in the case of AG-v-da Silva [2011] JRC 113:-

"It has been said many times that domestic assaults are every bit as serious as assaults on strangers.  In many cases they are even worse because the victim not only suffers the violence of the assault, but also the violence within a relationship which was important to her.  There is a risk in some cases that, quite wrongly, for no good reason, the victim considers that she is at fault for the violence which has been committed on her.  And the fact that such assaults often take place in the home makes matters even worse because they take place in a place which the woman is entitled to regard as a place of safety and security, as the Court said in AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182."

That case of course concerned an assault against a spouse but we agree with the Crown that the same principles apply to a domestic assault committed upon a child, albeit an adult child. 

5.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty.  He has been very polite and cooperative with the authorities.  He is remorseful; we have read his letter carefully.  A number of points have been raised by Mr Landick on the Social Enquiry Report which we have taken into account.  We wish to stress again the seriousness which the Court takes domestic violence but this is a difficult family situation in which, it has to be said, the victim is not entirely blameless.  The defendant has served the equivalent of a sentence of just under 9 months and because of that, and we wish to stress on that basis alone, we are going to place the defendant on a year's probation so that he can complete the recommended work which we think would be valuable and of assistance to him.  

6.        In relation to the count against you, you are sentenced to 1 year probation on the usual conditions. 

Authorities

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

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Le Feuvre [1996] JLR N 9b.

AG-v-Scott 2001/41.

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.