Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC155A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

2 August 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Chloe Mills

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

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 8^th March, 2013, Mills went out in town with her mother, Jane Mills.  After visiting numerous licensed premises and consuming alcohol, they met Mills' boyfriend and another male friend.  At around 01:25 hours on 9^th March, they were denied access to Mimosa due to her boyfriend's attire.  They then walked through Liberation Square to continue onto the Royal Yacht. 

On the same evening the victim went out in town with her boyfriend and her brother.  They also entered Liberation Square after leaving Mimosa at around 01:25 hours.  All members of her party had been drinking alcohol throughout the evening. 

A verbal altercation occurred between the two groups in Liberation Square, which escalated into physical violence.  The latter part of the incident was caught on Police CCTV camera, and the Force Control Room directed officers to attend the area. 

The victim later said that she felt an impact on her back and she and a woman fell forwards onto the floor.  The CCTV shows that at around this time Mills' mother, who had been standing next to the victim, fell into the fountain.  The next thing the victim remembered was being on the floor and feeling a kick to the left side of her face.  The CCTV showed Mills deliver two kicks to the victim's head while the victim was on the ground. 

Police officers attended at Liberation Square.  Both Mills and the victim were both arrested on suspicion of causing a breach of the peace by fighting.  Mills told the officers "I hold my hands up; I have kicked the girl in the head twice."  The victim was subsequently taken to the hospital for medical attention.  A deep skin wound under her left eye was cleaned and glued.  This injury caused scarring. 

Mills was interviewed and identified herself on the CCTV footage.  She told the officers that when she got into Liberation Square there were two males fighting and that her friend went to intervene.  She said that he ended up fighting with them.  Mills said that she had then tried to separate them, and that the victim got involved.  Mills alleged that "she called me a fat bitch."  Mills continued that her mother then said to the girl "that's my daughter you're talking about."  She then alleged that the girl then pushed her mother, who in turn fell into the fountain.  At this point she said that she "saw red" and committed the assault.  She added "I can only apologise.  I'd like to say sorry to the girl." 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea; cooperation; element of provocation; has the benefit of youth; low risk of reoffending and is a first offence; has good character references; has expressed remorse; apology letter to the victim; has lost employment as a result of conviction but secured a new job. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £500 in favour of the victim.

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 taking effect from the day of sentence sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court acknowledged that Mills' conduct had had an effect on the victim's life, both physically and psychologically.  Whilst the Court accepted that the mitigation available made this an exceptional case, they nevertheless increased the number of community service hours to reflect the gravity of the assault.  No exclusion order was made. 

Compensation Order made in the sum of £500 to be paid within 12 months or 3 months' imprisonment in default if not completed. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate E. L. Wakeling for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You assaulted the victim in this case by kicking her twice to the head when she was lying on the ground.  Such assaults almost invariably attract a prison sentence and there is a very good reason for thatl; it is because of the risk of serious injury to the person concerned.  We remind ourselves of what was said by the English Court in Attorney General's Reference (No 5 of 1994) (Partridge) Archbold 1995:-

"It has to be understood by anyone who uses their feet as weapons that a shod foot can be just as serious a weapon as a stick or any other inanimate object.  Anyone who does that must expect to go to prison for a substantial period.  Such behaviour runs the risk of causing the very gravest injuries, if not death."

2.        In this case you were fortunate the victim did not suffer injuries of that severity but she did suffer injuries; she has been left with scarring, although hopefully, it seems as if that may be capable of remedy, and she has been left very fearful of going out in the evenings.  So your conduct has had a real effect on the life of this victim.

3.        Now we accept that there was a lot of verbal provocation, not necessarily from the victim herself but from the group, and you also felt that your mother was being insulted and you were worried as to whether she might be hurt, particularly as she appears to have been pushed into the fountain.  But none of that begins to justify what you did. 

4.        Having said that, there is very considerable mitigation on your behalf.  You admitted what you had done immediately and you have pleaded guilty.  Most importantly you have no previous convictions of any sort.  We have seen excellent references and you had a good work record until you lost your job because of this, and we are pleased to hear that it looks as if you have new employment lined up.  You do not have a drink or a drug problem and we are satisfied that this was wholly out of character in your case.  You are also under 21 so the provisions of Article 4 apply so the Court must only sentence to youth detention when unavoidable. 

5.        We have read the report and the fact that this is a really quite exceptional case is shown by the fact that the Prosecution has suggested a non-custodial sentence; that is very unusual for cases where people kick.  And we have read your letter of remorse and we believe that you are genuinely remorseful about what you did, which again is important, and we note your letter of apology to the victim. 

6.        So all in all, we are willing to agree with the Crown that we do not have to send you to youth detention on this occasion but you must consider yourself very fortunate that that is the case.  Even allowing for all the mitigation we think that where somebody kicks somebody to the head when they are lying on the ground, a sentence of 15 months is likely to be inadequate and we think that the correct sentence would have been 18 months.  So we are going to impose Community Service but it is the equivalent of 18 months, not the equivalent of 15 months which was suggested.  So we are going to impose an order of 240 hours' Community Service. 

7.        We see no need for an Exclusion Order because we do not think you have a drink problem. 

8.        As to compensation, we think you should pay compensation.  You have caused this victim injury and you have also caused her to incur expense in dealing with the scarring which you caused, so we think you should pay for that.  We accept that you have no income at present but you have this job lined up.  So we are going give you plenty of time.  We are going to impose a Compensation Order of £500 but we are going to give you a year to pay so you should be able to manage that and we order that there will be 3 months' youth detention in default.  In other words, if you do not pay the compensation within a year, you will have to go the youth detention for 3 months. 

9.        We therefore formally impose a sentence of Community Service of 240 hours.  Now you must understand that you must turn up regularly and do exactly what you are told, and work hard, and of course, you must not reoffend, because if any of those things happen, if you do not turn up, or you do not work hard, then you will be brought back here and if you are brought back here then I am sure the Crown will be suggesting at that stage that you will have to go to prison. 

Authorities

Attorney General's Reference (No 5 of 1994) (Partridge) Archbold 1995.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

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