Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - assault.

[2013]JRC223

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 November 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Edward Gary Francis Richomme

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant offered factual basis for his guilty pleas to Counts 1 and 2 which were accepted.  The defendant had been invited to his ex-partner's flat to discuss her pregnancy but when he got there he found his ex-partner and her friend and his ex-partner did not wish to talk about the pregnancy.  He became angry and a verbal argument occurred.  He had been drinking before and was given further alcohol at his ex-partner's flat.  In anger he threw a half full plastic bottle at his ex-partner's friend which hit her but did not cause any injury (Count 2).  The argument continued with his ex-partner and the defendant tried to leave the flat and his ex-partner tried to prevent him by grabbing hold of him.  A struggle ensued in which his ex-partner bit his thumb causing a small cut.  He had grabbed her by the hair/face trying to push her off and having done so and seen the injury, he then punched her once to the face causing a black eye, soreness to her nose and a cut lip (Count 1).  Police attended and the defendant was arrested.  He was taken to hospital so that his injuries to his hand could be examined but he was argumentative and disruptive and therefore was removed.  He was then taken to police headquarters but the detention process could not be completed because he was argumentative.  He was placed in a cell.  A police officer had pushed a blanket through the hatch of the cell and the defendant had reached through and grasped hold of the officer's face cheeks and his hand had continued down the officer's jawline.  The officer had pulled back and the defendant had tried to reach for him again.  No injuries or marks were sustained (Count 3). 

The Crown cited the Royal Court's well-established policy in relation to domestic assaults and also assaults on police officers.  Count 1 was aggravated by the fact that the complainant was pregnant and there was also another child, albeit the child had slept through the incident.  The offence was also aggravated by the fact that the defendant was drunk and was subject to a Probation Order at the time of the assault. 

The ex-partner, after making the complaint to police, made it clear that she did not support the prosecution and would not give evidence on behalf of the prosecution at trial. 

The breach offences involved the defendant and his ex-partner having a verbal argument which became heated and resulted in various items of furniture being smashed.  When arrested he was found in possession of a personal amount of cannabis. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas and factual basis entered a short period prior to trial.  Did not have benefit of youth or good character.  An appalling criminal record particularly for offences of violence and public disorder.  The social enquiry report referred to his difficult and troubled upbringing.  Assessed at high risk of re-offending.  Some reduction in general risk of harm to the public but an increased level of animosity towards the police which was heightened when he was intoxicated and in a confrontation situation.  Assessed at being of a raised risk of harm through domestic violence. 

The Defence

The Defence invited the Court to impose a period of probation to assist with the defendant's ongoing problems.  Motivated to change.  Substantial period on remand and using that time constructively.  Showing signs of maturity.  Letter of apology/remorse.  Supportive references provided.  Offer of employment and accommodation and planned sporting activities to remove him from previous lifestyle.  Accepted alcohol a fundamental problem for him and wanted to take anti-abuse medication to assist in overcoming alcohol abuse.  Emphasised the particular factual basis provided in support of the guilty pleas.  Minor injuries sustained by ex-partner and the other two complainants had no injuries. 

Previous Convictions:

22 convictions for 67 offences involving 2 for grave and criminal assault, 7 for common assault, assault on police, numerous public order offences (such as resisting police, obstruction, drunk and disorderly, breach of the peace) breaking and entry, possession of cannabis and motoring. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 5^th February, 2013: 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to sentences imposed for the counts on the Indictment.

Total: 15 months' imprisonment. 

Crown seeks to discharge the Probation Order imposed on 5^th February 2013 by the Magistrate's Court.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant to be sentenced for three counts of common assault.  The first victim was his former partner who had made it clear that she did not support the prosecution.  The Court passed sentence on the particular basis accepted by the Crown.  It was not uncommon for victims of domestic violence to change their minds about pursuing charges but it is important in the public interest that offenders who commit domestic violence suffer the consequences of what they have done.  The Court repeated the particular factual basis put forward for the guilty pleas to Counts 1 and 2.  The Court noted that whilst he had been taken to hospital he had been argumentative and also the booking-in process at police headquarters had not been completed due to him being argumentative.  He then assaulted the police officer.  The defendant had an appalling record for violence.  He had breached previous non-custodial orders.  In mitigation the Court noted his guilty pleas, his letters of remorse, letters from mother and victim to Count 1 and the Court was pleased to note the progress he had made on remand and that he wished to take the ADAPT course. 

The Court had carefully considered the submissions made by the defence but die to the previous record there was no alternative to custody.  The Court noted it was very difficult and dangerous to use other cases to try and compare the factual circumstances.  The Court noted that the defendant had numerous previous convictions for assault and therefore reached the conclusion that 12 months was the correct sentence. 

The Court repeated its policy that police officers were entitled to be protected in carrying out their duties and thus the sentence on Count 3 should be consecutive. 

The Court noted that the defendant had said he wanted to change and the Court accepted that he did want to do so. It noted that he could attend the ADAPT course voluntarily upon release if he really was committed to change. 

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THe BAILIFF:

1.        You face three counts of common assault.  The principal victim in the case is your former partner.  She has made it clear that she will not come to court to give evidence and that she does not support the prosecution.  In those circumstances the prosecution has accepted your version of events, as do we, and we pass sentence on the basis of that version; but it is important to record that it is not uncommon for victims of domestic violence to change their minds for a variety of reasons and to feel that they do not wish to proceed.  There is nevertheless an important public interest in ensuring that offenders who have committed domestic violence do suffer the consequences of what they have done. 

2.        The version on which we are going to sentence is that you were invited to your former partner's house, an argument developed and in the course of that you threw a plastic bottle in the direction of her friend; you then fell asleep and when you woke up the victim confronted you about your relationship with another woman, details of which she had seen on your phone whilst you had been asleep.  You tried to leave but she held onto you by the leg; she then bit your thumb, at which stage you punched her once in the face causing bruising to the eye, a cut to the inside of her mouth and a sore nose. 

3.        Subsequently you were so argumentative at the hospital, where you had been taken because of the bite to the thumb, that the police removed you to the police station.  At the police station the booking-in process could not be completed because you were so argumentative and finally, once you were in your cell, you assaulted a police officer by grasping him by the cheek through the hatch of the cell door.  You have an appalling record, you have numerous convictions for assault and public order offences and the present offences put you in breach of a Probation Order which was imposed in February of this year for breach of the peace and possession of cannabis. 

4.        In mitigation Advocate Pearmain has referred to your guilty plea, to your letter which we have read carefully, together with the letters from your mother and the victim, as well as the other letters put before us.  We are pleased to hear of the progress that you have made whilst on remand and that you are expressing a determination to change.  We note that you say you wish to undertake the ADAPT course which is to deal with questions of domestic violence.  We also take into account the fact that whilst on remand you have served the equivalent of just over 10 months' imprisonment.  We have carefully considered what Advocate Pearmain has said.  She has urged that we should place you on probation so that you can undertake the ADAPT course and any other necessary measures. 

5.        But in view of your previous record and what you did on this occasion, we do not think there is any alternative to custody.  Now Advocate Pearmain also argued that 12 months was too long for the common assault on your former partner which consists of one punch.  She referred to the case of AG-v-Giles [2011] JRC 194, but as the Court has repeatedly said, it is very difficult and indeed dangerous to pick one other case and compare the facts with it.  It is impossible to know exactly what influenced the Court in that case but certainly one immediate obvious possibility is that there were many other charges before the court and the court no doubt had regard to the totality principle. 

6.        In your case, as we have already said, you have many previous convictions for assault and public order offences.  We think in the circumstances therefore that 12 months for this particular assault is correct.

7.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2: 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.  We repeat that police officers are entitled to the protection of the Court and therefore sentences for assaults on police officers should normally be consecutive.  As to the breach, we impose 1 month concurrent on each offence but consecutive to the others making a total of 15 months. 

8.        And can we just say this.  You say you wish to change and we accept that you do, but as the Probation report makes clear, the ADAPT course can be attended voluntarily.  You will not be in prison for much longer, something between 3 and 4 months given that you have already served the equivalent of 10 months, and there will be every possibility of your attending the ADAPT course voluntarily when you come out, if you mean what you say.  You will also then be in a position to be a father to your child. 

9.        We discharge the Probation Order. 

Authorities

AG-v-Giles [2011] JRC 194.

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.

AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A.