Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC185

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 September 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Sandra Stearn

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

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Stearn is a single parent of a 4 year old daughter.  While they were both in a public house on a Saturday afternoon, the victim told the little girl, apparently using a profanity, that he knew her father and that her father did not like her.  Stearn and her daughter later went to a park, where Stearn encountered the victim, and set about admonishing him.  She claimed that he grabbed her.  Losing her self-control she delivered a sustained beating consisting of forceful punches and kicks to his head and body, some delivered whilst he was on the ground.  The intoxicated victim did not fight back and scarcely defended himself.  An onlooker was "terrified".

Details of Mitigation:

A series of abusive relationships in childhood and later life, leaving her depressed and on the borderline of mental illness.  Reduced offending in recent years.  Guilty plea, remorse.  No serious injuries to victim and no complaint made by him. 

Previous Convictions:

13 previous convictions including 4 assaults.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        It is accepted that the victim in this case, who is a 47 year old man with whom you regularly drink, made an extremely hurtful remark to your daughter, which upset her, not surprisingly, so there was provocation.  But, nevertheless, this did not justify what followed.  When you saw him in the park shortly afterwards, you punched him several times when he was lying on the ground, and you were sitting on him; you also kicked him to the head several times and to the body.  It is fortunate that the injuries were not more serious; he suffered cuts, bruising and swelling to the face and around the eye.  He, in fact, has made no complaint to the police but there is no justification for what you did and nor does the fact that you were both under the influence of drink mitigate matters at all.  You have previous convictions for assault but you have not committed any offence since 2006. 

2.        The Court's policy on assaults of this nature is clear.  They almost invariably lead to sentences of imprisonment because the Court is determined that people should not be assaulted in the streets of St Helier.  Advocate Haines has urged that this is an exceptional case.  He has referred in particular to the four reports we have had, a social enquiry report, alcohol and drugs, psychological and psychiatric reports and we have read them carefully.  They do all agree that you have deep-seated problems arising from the extraordinarily difficult and unfortunate upbringing you had, together with your level of intellect and the emotional and psychological issues which you face.  They have all recommended a disposal by way of non-custodial sentence. 

3.        We have also to take into account the fact that the victim has not complained, although that is a comparatively minor matter, your guilty plea, your expression of remorse and the references we have received, which show you are a good mother to your children.  We also, as I say, take into account the fact that you have turned your life around in many ways and there has been no offending since 2006.  We have particularly considered the effect of a prison sentence on your daughter.  She lives with you and if you were to be sent to prison she would have to go and live with your sister, who works full-time, and there would clearly be real difficulties.  In addition it seems clear that you would lose your home, so when you came out of prison, the ability of you and your daughter, and indeed your sons, to re-establish family life would be very much adversely affected. 

4.        We have considered all these things and we have balanced them against the seriousness of what you did.  It has been a difficult decision but the Court has just been persuaded that the circumstances are sufficiently exceptional that society's best interests would be served by not sending you to prison on this occasion. 

5.        We are going to place you on probation for 2 years.  You must also be punished and we are going to impose a Community Service Order of 240 hours, which is the equivalent of an 18 month sentence, which the Crown moved for and which was right.  The Probation Service indicated that this might be imposing too great a burden on you.  We strongly disagree.  You must be punished for what you have done.  Your child will be at school and there is no reason why you cannot carry out community service to put back into the community and pay for what you have done.  So we are going to impose the Community Service Order. 

6.        Let me just give you a clear warning.  You have been extremely lucky, it has been a close-run thing.  If you do not do exactly what the probation officer says, turn up to the meetings, attend the courses that you are told to attend and generally comply with what he requires, or if you do not turn up for the community service on the dot, in order to carry out the work that you are told to do, or, of course, if you reoffend, then you will be brought back here and it is very hard to see any alternative then but a prison sentence being imposed.  So this is a chance; we hope you take advantage of it and we hope we do not see you before us again. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Fowler-v-AG [2007] JRC 044.