Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny - assault - malicious damage - grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC129

Royal Court

(Samedi)

26 June 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt, Bailiff, and Jurats Marett-Crosby and Crill.

The Attorney General

-v-

A

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

First Indictment

1 count of:

Larceny (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Assault (Count 1).

Third Indictment

1 count of:

Malicious damage (Count 1).

Forth Indictment

1 count of:

Grave and Criminal assault (Count 1).

Fifth Indictment

1 count of:	Assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Assault (Count 2).

Age:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Count 1 - Larceny: A stole a bottle of vodka to the value of £19 from the Co-op, Grande Marché.

Second Indictment

Count 1 - Assault: A shouted at and then pushed the manager of Alfonso's.

Third Indictment

Count 1 - Malicious damage: A kicked a hole in the plaster of a corridor at the Shelter where she was residing after a disagreement about the issuing of her medication.

Fourth Indictment

Count 1 - Grave and criminal assault: A met her on and off partner, D, outside the hospital.  He lifted his sweatshirt and she claims she thought he had a weapon.  After a short argument, during which D taunted her about contact with their son, A grabbed D in a headlock and forced his head against a wall.  She then hit his head against the wall twice, and he slid to the ground.  A leaned in and bit D on the nose and dug his nails into his cheeks, scratching him.  She slapped him once and then they both stood up.  After a further short argument, A slapped him once more and then left the scene.  D suffered bruising, scratches and abrasions to his face. 

Fifth Indictment

Counts 1 and 2 - Assaults: The victims in these counts were A's daughters, C (Count 1) and B (Count 2, initially charged as grave and criminal assault).  A and both girls were at C's home on the evening of 7th December, 2012.  A had been drinking.  An argument between A, C and B broke out after A began shouting at, and then grabbed hold of, a male guest, M in the living room.  B pushed her mother off M and told her to leave.  An argument ensued and A and B struggled, during which A put her hand around the back of B's neck and pushed her head down.  C entered the room and the three went to the bathroom to discuss what had happened.  B told C what had happened and A called her a liar. 

A returned to the living room and was verbally aggressive to M.  C told her to leave.  They went to the kitchen where A and C argued, and B pushed A away from C.  In response A pulled B's hair.  B pushed her away and C held her back.  During the struggle B hit A in the face.  C punched her mother in order to prevent her from swinging a punch at B.  C and B then struggled to remove A from the flat but she held onto the door frame.  After having been removed, A refused to leave until she had her tobacco.  Another struggle ensued at the front door and A scratched C's face.  B pulled A off C.  A then placed her hands around B's neck, forcibly grabbing her and pushing her away, causing scratches.  A and B pulled each other's hair and A tried to grab B, who kneed her in the face to prevent this.  A then went for C, who also kneed her in the face to prevent this.  A let go of C and was pushed out of the door. 

C suffered bruising to the arm and face and reddening to the scalp.  B suffered bruising and abrasions to the face and neck. 

A initially pleaded not guilty to this offence.  Whilst awaiting indictment, she breached her bail conditions by repeatedly contacting B, including sending threatening text messages and claiming that she (A) was going to die.  Trial dates were set.  At the Plea and Directions Hearing A offered guilty pleas to two counts of assault (the attack on B having been charged as grave and criminal assault) on a detailed agreed basis.  These were accepted. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas (though late on Fifth Indictment, and the value lessened by her assertion to the probation officer that she had acted purely in self-defence). 

Difficult background and alcohol problems. 

High risk of re-conviction and poses a "significantly raised risk of further harm through violence, particularly when drinking".

The Defence

Urged a non-custodial penalty.  First time in custody, had had a profound effect.  Best chance of turning her life around was to receive support in the community.  The daughters have forgiven her.  Was taunted and provoked by D. 

Previous Convictions:

23 previous convictions, including convictions for assault and assault on a police officer.  She had never been sentenced to imprisonment. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Fourth Indictment

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Fifth Indictment

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the other Indictments.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

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 prison sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Fourth Indictment

Count 1:

1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.

Fifth Indictment

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the other Indictments.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.

Total: 21 months' imprisonment.

No Exclusion Order made.

Ms. E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Hall for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        For many years you had a serious drug problem, but to your credit, you have overcome that.  Unfortunately, you have now developed a serious drink problem, which has resulted in your spending most days drinking in the park and having to rely on temporary or shelter accommodation, and it is drink which lies at the bottom of all this offending. 

2.        Of all the offences, that is three assaults, a grave and criminal assault, malicious damage and shoplifting, the most serious of course are the assaults, particularly the grave and criminal assault and also the assaults on your daughters, the youngest of whom is 14 years old, and they are entitled to the protection of their mother, not to be assaulted by her. 

3.        You also have a poor record, but Miss Hall has urged that there is strong mitigation and that you realise that you must address your drink problem.  We were referred to your guilty plea, your very troubled background, with the domestic violence of your parents and we do take that into account.  She says that you are remorseful and we have read your letter and we accept that you are.  We have also read the letter from D, making it clear that he takes substantial responsibility for what happened in the grave and criminal assault and there had clearly been a lot of provocation from him.  We have read the letter from Mr Houiellebecq and we accept that you are motivated to change and that you have used your time well in prison.

4.        We have considered very carefully whether we could now release you on probation and community service, but we have concluded that overall that we cannot do that; the overall offending is too serious.  But we think that we can reduce the conclusions quite substantially, so that with a little longer in prison, if you continue to make good use of it, you will really be in a position when you come out to start your life again.  It will enable your probation officer and everyone else to plan when you come out, to try and provide you with the maximum help and you can then, hopefully, overcome the drink problem which your time in prison will at least have helped with.

5.        We are going to impose a prison sentence, but we are going to reduce it quite substantially because of the various mitigating factors. 

6.        On the First Indictment it is 2 weeks' imprisonment.  On the Second Indictment; 1 month's imprisonment.  On the Third Indictment; 2 weeks' imprisonment.  On the Fourth Indictment; 1 year's imprisonment; we think that is sufficient given the provocation and all the other matters.  All of those to be concurrent.  Then on the Fifth Indictment, that is the assaults on the children, 6 months' for Count 1 and 9 months' for Count 2, those to be concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the others.  21 months' in total and you have of course spent some time in prison already which will be credited against that. 

7.        We hope very much that when you come out you will be in a position to conquer this drink addition, because we are sure that if you can do that, the future looks much better. 

8.        We make no Exclusion Order.

Authorities

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Stirling [2011] JLR N 40.

AG-v-Stirling [2011] JRC 179.

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

AG-v-Le Feuvre 1996/79.

AG-v-Kilgour [2006] JRC 028.

AG-v-Jones [2003] JRC 015.

AG-v-Doherty, Greener and Greener [2009] JRC 011.

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

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

"Overarching Principles: Assaults on Children and Cruelty to a Child" UK Sentencing Guidelines Council (extract).