Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - violently revisiting arrest - perverting the course of justice.

[2013]JRC246

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 December 2013

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu, Morgan, Fisher, Kerley, Liston and Blampied.

The Attorney General

-v-

Naseem Osman Saeed

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th October, 2013, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Violently resisting arrest (Count 2).
1 count of:	Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice (Count 3).

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Grave and criminal assault

In July 2013, in the home they shared, and whilst their 10-month old son was in the flat, Saeed threatened his partner whilst holding a knife by his side.  He threw the knife down and then pulled the victim by her hair across the lounge.  She fell to the floor and Saeed dragged her by the hair, pulling her to her feet and then knocking her down again.  She hit her head twice against the brick wall and wooden floor.  He also punched her at least twice to the eye area while holding her by the neck.  The victim called the police.  On arrival, the officers found the victim clearly distressed and with swollen eyes.  An ambulance was called and the victim was taken to hospital. 

As officers were arresting Saeed outside the flat, he alleged that the victim had fallen on the stairs.  He tensed, shouted the victims name and tried to run back into the flat.  Despite warnings, Saeed continued to struggle and had to be restrained against the wall and then taken to the floor.  A police officer suffered a sprained ankle and ligament strain in the struggle. 

The victim suffered extensive bruising to her face, particularly to her eyes, one of which was swollen shut.  Her forehead was also hugely swollen.  She also had multiple bruises and abrasions to her body and petechial haemorrhaging to her neck.  The Force Medical Examiner described her injuries as at the extreme end of the spectrum and the most severe he had seen in a victim of domestic abuse.  She suffered ongoing emotional stress.

Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.

Whilst on remand for the grave and criminal assault, Saeed pressurised a pregnant witness into withdrawing her statement in the case.  She was caused stress by this.  He did so via the witnesses husband, with whom he was in regular contact whilst at La Moye.  Despite withdrawing her statement the witness confirmed that everything contained in it was true. 

Assessed as being at moderate risk of reoffending but high risk of further acts of domestic violence.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas.

The Defence

Warm and affectionate father.  Maintained the victim attacked him first.  Injury to clavicle caused pain during the arrest.  No threats were made in the perverting the course of justice offence. 

Previous Convictions:

19 previous convictions, none of which are for violence. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the knife sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment.

No order made for forfeiture and destruction of the knife.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant is here to be sentenced on an Indictment containing three counts; a count of grave and criminal assault, a count of violently resisting arrest and a count of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. 

2.        Taking first the offence of grave and criminal assault; the defendant entered the kitchen of the home which he was sharing with the victim and he took from her a knife which she was using in preparation for dinner.  She ran to the bedroom and the defendant followed.  He shouted at her and made various threats to her and she tried to calm him down.  He was holding the knife down by his side and standing about a metre away from her.  During this time she thought he was going to kill her.  He threw the knife on the bed and left the room.  A little later, when in the lounge, he dragged her by the hair; she fell to the floor; he knocked her down again and he hit her head against a brick wall and against the floor.  During the course of the assault he punched her in the eye area on at least two occasions while holding her neck with the other hand.  Subsequently the victim was able to call the police. 

3.        The doctor who subsequently examined the victim said this:-

"The number pattern and severity of the injuries sustained put her injuries at the most extreme end of the spectrum and certainly the most severe that I have seen in a victim of alleged domestic violence."

In the days following she was unable to open her left eye, she suffered severe swelling to her face requiring her to take time off work, and was signed off for emotional stress.  We have in our papers a copy of the victim personal statement which she made as a result. 

4.        In so far as concerns the assault, we have given anxious consideration as to whether there was, in reality, a threat made with the knife.  We have resolved that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that the defendant was threatening the victim with the knife and our sentence is reached upon that basis.  I add, however, that we think that the seriousness of the injuries sustained is by far and away the most important feature in this assault, coupled with the fact that it was a very serious incident of domestic violence and the Court has made plain in the past its views about domestic violence and there is no need to repeat those today. 

5.        When the police arrived at the premises there was originally no answer but eventually the defendant appeared.  He pretended he did not know why the police should have received a report of a domestic incident.  In the course of the enquires the police were then making, the defendant said that his partner was "nuts" and that "she fell on the stairs."  He was taken by the police to be arrested; he struggled and he swore at the police and subsequently it appears that in the attempts to restrain him, one of the police officers felt a pain in his right ankle, he was diagnosed with a sprained ankle and a moderate strain to the ligaments, and that pain lasted for some time after arrest and that is the conduct which gave rise to the charge of violently resisting arrest. 

6.        In the course of the investigation the police officers interviewed friends and family and took a statement from the wife of the defendant's cousin who, at that stage, was pregnant.  She made a statement in which she detailed her knowledge of the turbulent relationship between the defendant and the victim and this statement was disclosed to the defendant via his lawyer in the usual way.  Subsequently the defendant telephoned his cousin and it appears made suggestions to him that his cousin's wife should withdraw the statement which she had made.  Indeed, she did subsequently withdraw it, she did not retract it in the sense of saying it was untrue - quite the reverse, but she withdrew it and there is no doubt at all that the basis upon which the defendant approached her was to improve his position in relation to these proceedings and she did as had been suggested.  Her reasons were as follows:-

"I have therefore decided to withdraw my original statement.  I don't see the point in withdrawing my statement but I am doing it because [the defendant] has asked me to.  All of this is causing me stress and, at 20 weeks of being pregnant, I don't need this stress.  I am aware by withdrawing my statement this may cause further problems for [the defendant], but I am only doing what he has asked.  Everything that I said... in my first statement is a true version of events."

It is that course of conduct which amounts to the attempt to pervert the course of justice. 

7.        In so far as the assault is concerned, the Court is in no doubt whatsoever that the custody threshold is passed.  Very severe injuries were caused.  We take into account the summary of the Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 factors which are set out by the Crown save that, as I have indicated, we are not taking into account the use of the knife.  Nonetheless we think that the Crown's conclusions as to the sentence are right.  We have in mind, in particular, that this was an extremely serious offence of domestic violence and, notwithstanding the turbulent relationship between the victim and the defendant, his conduct was completely unjustified, as indeed he accepts. 

8.        We have listened carefully to all the mitigation which has been put before us by Advocate Fogarty and we accept that there has been a guilty plea entered; we accept that there has been volatility in the relationship; we certainly have noted the remorse which has been expressed; we have had regard to the fact that there are no recorded convictions of this kind and, as I say, taken into account that abusive traffic may not have been in one direction only.  Nonetheless we think that the Crown's conclusions are correct in relation to Count 1. 

9.        I take next Count 3 which is the attempt to perverse the course of justice.  Perverting the course of justice is an extremely serious offence.  It is an offence which, theoretically, carries no limit on the custodial sentence that might be imposed.  It goes to the very heart of the delivery of justice.  In this case it was an important threat to justice that was made by the defendant, putting pressure on a witness to change her statement which, if changed, was intended to work to his benefit.  We think that the Crown's conclusions of 12 months' imprisonment in that respect are correct and that it merits a consecutive sentence to the other charges.  I have taken Count 3 next because the second count of violently resisting the police in the course of the arrest would very often also call for a consecutive sentence and it is only on the grounds of totality that we do not do so in this case.  The police are entitled to the protection of the Courts in what they do and there was no justification for the defendant acting in the way he did.  For these reasons therefore the Court takes the view that the Crown's conclusions are correct. 

10.      On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and on Count 3; 1 year's imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

11.      The Court does not order the forfeiture and destruction of the knife which seems tangential to what we have to consider. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Barwise [2009] JRC 182.

AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104.

AG-v-Mendes [2013] JRC 162.