Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - obstructing a police officer - escape from lawful custody - violently resisting arrest.

[2013]JRC214

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 November 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Milner.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jose Dionisio Goncalves Pereira

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

1 count of:	Obstructing a police officer (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Grave and criminal assault (Counts 2 and 5).
1 count of:	Escaping from lawful custody (Count 3).
1 count of:	Violently resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (Count 4).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant's ex-partner contacted the police as she was concerned for her safety following the release of the defendant from hospital after attempting to take his own life.  Police officers located the defendant and returned him to the A&E department of the hospital.  It was agreed that the hospital would keep him in hospital overnight.  However the defendant discharged himself in the early hours of the morning without the medical staff being aware of this. 

The ex-partner contacted the police to advice that the defendant was outside her home address and trying to gain entry.  Officers attended and gave him a lawful order to leave the area.  The lawful order was recorded on one of the officer's body cameras.  The defendant was clearly advised of the consequences were he to return and he was seen walking off in the general direction of St Helier. 

PC Fitzgerald remained in the vicinity and at 03:00 hours he returned to the property and found the defendant inside the garage attempting to shut the garage door.  The officer managed to open the door and the defendant walk out.  He was advised that he was under arrest for refusing to obey a lawful order (Count 1). 

A struggle ensued resulting in the officer being pushed to the ground where he grazed his elbow.  Whilst the officer was on the floor and attempting to get up, the defendant kicked him twice and one of the kicks landed on the officer's mouth causing him to have a swollen lip.  The defendant was wearing soft shoes and caught him with the instep (Count 2). 

The defendant walked off and the officer got up and as he approached him the defendant turned and grabbed the officer by the throat pushing him into the hedge.  The officer was fearful for his safety as the defendant was squeezing his windpipe.  The defendant made good his escape on to the beach (Counts 3 and 4). 

Other officers were summoned to locate the defendant and one officer attended Le Bourg slip, St Clement.  The defendant approached, walking along the beach banging two rocks together.  They were approximately 5 to 6 inches in diameter and at least 2 inches in depth.  The defendant threw one of the rocks at the officer which hit the officer in the back as the officer had turned his back on the defendant.  The defendant then ran at the officer and grabbed him and hit him twice to the back of the head with the other rock.  The officer was then able to grapple the defendant to the ground where he restrained him and summoned other officers to assist and arrest the defendant.  The officer had a cut to his head, grazing and swelling to two other places on the top of his head, reddening and soreness to his lower spine/back area, grazes to his forearm and two small cuts on his fingers.  The cut on his head was glued. 

In interview the defendant admitted the incidents although he had some gaps in his recollection due he claimed to the quantity of tablets he had taken.  He admitted he had assaulted the officer outside the house so as to get away and that he had also thrown the rocks at the second police officer to avoid arrest and to get away.  He described the police officers as "animals". 

The Crown cited the established policy that the Court would protect police officers in the execution of their duties and that those persons who committed a grave and criminal assault on a police officer could expect to receive a not insubstantial prison sentence.  The Crown applied the various factors set out in the case of Harrison-v-AG to the two counts of grave and criminal assault. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas some of which were entered in the Magistrate's Court; did not have the benefit of youth.  Limited criminal record but did include a previous assault on police.  Did not have respect for the police.  Despite lack of record clear from background report that had a history of alcohol and substance abuse.  Assessed as being of moderate risk of re-offending and as being a significant risk of harm to police officers exercising their duty. 

The Defence

The defendant was aged 30 and had been in Jersey since age 15; has spent half of life and all of adult life in Jersey; considers himself a Channel Islander; had a 6 year struggle with alcohol and substance abuse; attempted suicide which led to his offending, a cry for help; has spent 6 months on remand and now was physically well and more emotionally grounded; had become reconciled with sisters and their family; sisters would be prepared to offer him accommodation on release; has a good employment record; references provided in support of general good character; has written letters of apology to the two police officers in draft for the Court's approval; had used his time constructively whilst in Prison; even if the Court decided that custody was appropriate submitted that deportation would be disproportionate; asked the Court to give him a chance to rebuild life in Jersey. 

Previous Convictions:

2 convictions for assault on police and possession of a controlled drug. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 30 months' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

On a daily basis police officers put their personal safety on the line in order to protect the rest of us.  They are entitled to the Court's protection when people assault them so as to send out a clear message to others that it is not worth assaulting the police.  That is why the Court has so often stated that anyone who commits an assault of any gravity on a police officer in the exercise of his duties can expect a substantial prison sentence. 

The defendant ignored the order of the police Officer and resisted his attempt to arrest him.  When the officer fell to the ground the defendant had kicked him twice and one of the kicks had landed on his mouth.  It was fortunate he was wearing soft shoes.  As the defendant walked away the officer had gone to perform his duties and the defendant had grabbed him by the throat and pushed him in the hedge before running off.  Sometime later the defendant had been seen by another police officer on the beach by Le Bourg slip.  The defendant had two rocks with him and he threw one at the officer striking him in the back and then ran towards the officer and struck him on the head with the other rock.  To the credit of the officer he overcame the defendant and called for assistance.  Both police officers suffered injuries albeit fortunately they were minor.  His attitude to the police came through in the interview when he referred to the police as "animals". 

The defendant had a deep seated alcohol and drug dependency and he was under the influence at the time of the offending.  He had just discharged himself from the hospital after a suicide attempt. 

The defendant only had a minor record but did include a previous assault on police.  That was clearly less serious and he had been fined for that offence. 

The Court had taken into account his guilty pleas and had read carefully the background reports.  They had also read the letters of apology and references.  The Court accepted that he was now remorseful and was also pleased to hear the progress he had made in prison. 

The Court had taken all of those matters into count but for offending of this nature custodial was inevitable.  Given that there had been two major assaults the Court had considered whether the conclusions were on the low side.  The Court had decided not to increase them but rather to grant those conclusions. 

The Court then considered the recommendation for deportation.  The Court concluded that the first limb of the test was obviously met.  The defendant had a previous conviction for assault on police and had now committed two more serious offences.  They noted that there was a moderate risk of re-offending.  The Court was satisfied that his continued presence in the Island was detrimental to the community. 

The Court had then carried out balance in regard to Article 8 ECHR.  It noted that the defendant had been in Jersey since aged 15 and was now 30 albeit he spent 2 to 3 years in Guernsey.  He had three sisters in Jersey and his parents lived in Madeira.  The relationship with his sisters in Jersey had broken down but had more recently been rebuilt.  He did not have a partner or children in the Island.  The Court took into account that he had a good work record and had a lengthy work record. 

However the Court noted that these were serious offences and they were not his first assault on the police and there was a significant risk of future harm to police officers executing their duties.  The Court had careful regard to all relevant factors but in its judgment the interests of the community outweighed the arguments against deportation. 

Conclusions granted. 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On a daily basis police officers put their personal safety on the line in order to protect the rest of us.  They are entitled to the Court's protection when people assault them so as to send out a clear message to others that it is not worth assaulting the police.  That is why the Court has so often stated that anyone who commits an assault of any gravity on a police officer in the execution of his duty can expect a substantial prison sentence. 

2.        In this case you ignored the orders of the police officer and you resisted his attempt to arrest you.  When he fell to the ground you kicked him twice, one landing on his mouth; fortunately you were wearing soft shoes.  As you walked off the officer continued to perform his duty and he pursued you.  This time you grabbed him by the throat and pushed him into a hedge before running off.  Sometime later you were seen by another police officer on the beach near Le Bourg slip.  As described by the Crown Advocate, you had two rocks in your hand.  You threw one at the officer, which struck him in the back; you then ran towards the officer and struck him on the head with the other rock.  There was then a struggle and, to his credit, the officer managed to overcome you and then call for assistance.  Both officers suffered injuries, albeit fortunately they were minor. 

3.        When interviewed your attitude perhaps came through, because you were asked how you felt about it and you replied "I feel bad but they are animals."  Underlying this it is clear you have a deep-seated alcohol and drug dependency and you were obviously under the influence at the time of this offending; you had just discharged yourself from hospital after a suicide attempt and this all arose in the context of an incident with your partner.  Although you have only a very minor record, you do have one previous conviction for assaulting the police, albeit that that was clearly less serious and you were fined. 

4.        We take into account that you have pleaded guilty, we have read carefully the reports which are before us; we have noted your good work record and the letters and references that we have received; we also accept that you are now remorseful and we have read the draft letters that you want to send to the two police officers.  We are also pleased to hear of the progress you have made in prison whilst on remand.  As your advocate has said, you are now both physically and emotionally in a much better position than you were.  So we have taken all that into account but, for offending of this nature against police officers, a custodial sentence is inevitable.  Indeed, given the fact that there were two major assaults, the Crown's conclusions might be thought to be on the low side.  However the Court has decided not to increase them but will grant the conclusions. 

5.        On Count 1; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 2; 15 months' imprisonment, on Count 3; 3 months' imprisonment and on Count 4; 1 month's imprisonment.  Those are all concurrent, making 15 months' imprisonment.  On Count 5; 15 months' imprisonment but that is consecutive, therefore the total is 2½ years' imprisonment. 

6.        We then have to consider the question of whether to recommend deportation.  The first limb of the test is obviously met.  You have a previous conviction for assaulting the police, you have now committed these serious offences and you are assessed as being at moderate risk of reoffending.  We are quite satisfied that your continued presence in the Island is detrimental. 

7.        But we must balance against that your rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. You have been in Jersey since you were 15 and you are now 30, although you did spend some 2-3 years in Guernsey.  You have three sisters in the Island but your parents still live in Madeira.  You did have a relationship with a partner in Jersey but that has broken down; accordingly you have no children and no partner in the Island.  The only family in the Island are your sisters and their children.  Prior to this offending your relationship with your sisters and their children was fractured, probably because of your drug and alcohol dependency.  But since this offence the relationship has been rebuilt and they have been contacting you in prison; so we do take that into account together with the fact that you have a good work record and we take into account the length of time you have been here. 

8.        The fact remains that these were serious offences.  It is not the first time you have assaulted a police officer and you are assessed by the Probation Service as posing a significant risk of harm to police officers executing their duty. 

9.        We have carefully considered the right balance to strike but in our judgement the interests of the community outweigh the considerations which point against deportation and therefore we are going to make a recommendation that you be deported at the end of your sentence. 

Authorities

AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A.

AG-v-Driscoll [2005] JRC 083.

AG-v-Ollivier [2005] JRC 147.

Mandel-v-AG [1989] JLR N 11c.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.