Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2013]JRC162

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 August 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

R

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

"Domestic violence" - three offences over a period of 10 days, in the matrimonial home, a knife being involved in the most serious offence.  R and his wife had been together for 16 years and has a child aged 9.  Tensions in marriage were increased by wife's Facebook contacts and photo's, some of which R saw as inappropriate.  First assault occurred after an incident in a nightclub, where R thought wife was flirting provocatively with other men; back at home they argued, R pulling her, grabbing tops of shoulders and shaking her forcefully, putting her in fear.  Following day argument continued in similar vein; R came from kitchen, where he had been preparing food, approached wife in lounge aggressively while still holding a knife, wife terrified as to what he might do.  Final incident some days later again started over Facebook photos, argument became physical, R grabbing wife by her hair, child - caught between them - separated them; R threw wife' iPhone in temper, breaking case. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Knife not pointed at wife.  No injuries inflicted in any of the assaults.  Remorse.  Letter from wife stating no other incidents of domestic violence in last 8 years; described as generally an excellent father to their child. 

Previous Convictions:

One relevant conviction - a previous grave and criminal assault on wife in 2005, fractured her jaw with single punch, 18 month Probation Order imposed in Magistrate's Court; twenty-five other offences, mainly motoring.  One previous Royal Court appearance in 2000 when ordered to complete 120 hours community service for his involvement in a spate of break and entries of commercial premises, providing transport to the other participants. 

Conclusions:

Total: 15 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defence had suggested community service, not a soft option, would be appropriate as no injuries caused and R had served equivalent of an 8 month sentence on remand; Court did not accept this as knife crime and domestic violence involved, both matters viewed seriously by the Court, previous serious assault in wife and final assault in presence of 9 year old child. 

Conclusions granted.

Ms S. J. O'Donnell, Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You assaulted your wife on three occasions in the space of some 10 days as described by the Crown Advocate.  The most serious, of course, was the grave and criminal assault, when you approached your wife holding a kitchen knife and you scared her by saying something like "If it means losing you and our child I am ready to do anything".  We accept that you happened to be holding the knife in your hand as the argument developed because you were in the kitchen but nevertheless, it must have been very frightening for your wife.  It is clear also that when they went to the police, after the third incident, your wife and child were in a very distressed state and, indeed, your child had had to try and pacify you during that third incident by asking you to come outside with them.  That is not something which you should inflict on a 10 year-old child. 

2.        This Court has said on many occasions that it takes a very serious view of domestic violence and we are going to repeat what was said in the case of AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104 by the Deputy Bailiff at paragraph 5:-

"First of all the message is that knife crime will be dealt with severely even though no injury is caused, and secondly, domestic violence is similarly a crime which will be treated severely.  A person's home, however big or small it is, is their refuge and if the person with whom the home is shared uses violence the victim suffers a double violation; a violation by a person they have trusted and a violation in their own home.  People who commit these offences can expect the Court to focus on the victims and not on their hardships and on their difficulties."

And of course in your case it is not the first time; you have a previous conviction for grave and criminal assault on your wife back in 2005 when you punched her and, as a result, fractured her jaw.  You were placed on probation on that occasion and you undertook a course similar to the ADAPT course, which is recommended this time.  Now your wife has confirmed that there has been no domestic violence since then until now, but the fact is you have now repeated the violence that you committed back in 2005. 

3.        Advocate Jones has made a strong case on your behalf.  He has emphasised your guilty plea from an early stage, your remorse, and we do accept that you are remorseful; we have read your letter and it also appears from the reports.  He emphasises that, although your marriage has come to an end as your wife says, nevertheless your wife has asked us to be lenient and has emphasised your qualities as a father and we accept that you love your family and wish to be a good father, and indeed are a good father.  You also have a good work record and a job is open to you as and when you are released.  He emphasises that you have already served the equivalent of 8 months' imprisonment and, as a result, community service would not be seen as an unduly lenient sentence for such offending. 

4.        We have considered everything that he said, so persuasively, very carefully, but the Court cannot agree.  We accept the incident with the knife was at the lower end of the scale of seriousness of knife crime, but your wife was not to know what you would do.  You had, after all, fractured her jaw in a previous assault, many years earlier.  The Court has said on many occasions that knife crime will normally attract a prison sentence and that domestic violence will normally attract a prison sentence.  Here we have both combined.  So, despite the mitigation, we think there is no alternative but to a prison sentence and we think the Crown's conclusions take full account of all the mitigation.

5.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on Count 1; 2 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 15 months' imprisonment, Count 3; 2 months' imprisonment, Count 4; 1 week's imprisonment, all of these concurrent, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment in all. 

Authorities

AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

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

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.