Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2014]JRC058

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 March 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Alan Thomas Campbell

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

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Initially entered a not guilty plea but changed plea on eve of trial.  Newton hearing required to establish factual basis for sentencing.  The defendant and his girlfriend were playing loud music in their flat which was disturbing their neighbour.  She banged on the floor.  The defendant went to speak to the neighbour but was refused entry.  The defendant was intoxicated.  He returned to the flat.  His girlfriend went to speak to the neighbour and the defendant heard his girlfriend screaming and went to see what was happening and saw his girlfriend on the floor with the victim standing over her holding her hair.  A struggle between the 3 people then took place.  The defendant managed to free his girlfriend and in the process the victim bit the defendant's hand.  He punched the victim on several occasions in an attempt to release his hand from the victim's mouth.  Once she had released her bite on the defendant's hand she returned to her flat and closed the door.  The defendant in anger shoulder-barged the door open, entered the flat and punched the victim more than once to the face causing bruising to the left cheek bone, bruising to both eye sockets, cut on her inner lip, a loose tooth, pain in the back of her head and blurred vision.  The defendant returned to the flat and called the Police as did the victim.  In interview he initially denied having broken down the door or entering the flat or punching the victim in the face.  When shown the evidence he said that he could not recall the incident.  At the Newton hearing he admitted that he had been lying to minimise his role.  Accepted that it was not pleasant having to admit hitting a woman in the face.  The Crown had regard to the case of Harrison v AG when considering the seriousness of the offence.  The Crown accepted there was an element of provocation in consequence of the victim biting the defendant's hand.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea although a late change of plea a week before trial.  Defence case changed during the course of Newton hearing.  The Crown suggested only entitled to a 25% reduction.  At the Newton hearing he expressed remorse.  Acknowledged that he had a problem with alcohol.  Not of good character and had 2 previous convictions for grave and criminal assault and 3 for common assault..  3 of those convictions were for drink fuelled domestic assaults on women.

The Defence

Not  revenge attack.  Intention to confront and lost temper.  Accepted was in drink and had difficulty controlling temper.  Had successfully completed a variety of Probation courses in the past.  Did not consider drinking habits excessive.  Difference of opinion between defendant and experts as to consequences of drinking habits.  This was not a domestic violence situation.  Prepared to undertake Community Service and Probation courses if appropriate but questioned what he would gain from repeating the courses.  Supportive references provided.

Previous Convictions:

7 convictions for a total of 18 offences including importing controlled drugs, possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply, grave and criminal assault x2, common assault x3, assaulting Police, resisting arrest, malicious damage and drink driving.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

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

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault committed on his neighbour.  She occupied the flat immediately above his in a building in which there was very poor soundproofing.  On the evening in question he and his partner had been playing music loudly when the victim banged on the ceiling by way of complaint.  The defendant says there had been ongoing issues over noise between him and the victim although they had never met.  He and his partner initially responded by turning up the volume of the music.  The defendant then decided to confront the victim, who was aged 54 and who, it transpired, lived in her flat alone.  She slammed the door in his face.  His partner then went up in order to speak to the victim and he heard his partner screaming.  He ran upstairs to find his partner on the floor with the victim pulling her hair.  He tried to separate them and in the melee the victim bit him on the hand.  He punched the victim on the ribs and she released his hand, retreating back into her flat and shutting the door.  Incensed at being bitten he barged open the victim's door, breaking the lock, and punching the victim in the face more than once, causing the most serious injuries to her face.  Those injuries included bruising and swelling to the left cheek bone, bruising to both eye sockets and a cut inner lip.  The defendant returned to his flat and called the police to report an assault on both him and his partner.  The victim also called the police.  The force medical examiner found both the defendant and his partner were intoxicated; the victim was not. 

2.        The defendant does not have a good record.  It includes previous assaults on women in what were clearly domestic situations.  He is assessed by the probation department at a moderate risk of reoffending.  Mr Gafoor describes him as having a past history of illicit drug abuse interspersed with excessive drinking.  He is assessed by Mr Gafoor as physically dependent on alcohol when abstinent from opiates.  Given his lack of insight and motivation to address his alcohol problems Mr Gafoor does not recommend him for a treatment order, although we are told by the defendant today that he is prepared to undertake antabuse again.  The probation report reports the defendant as being reluctant to commit to a probation order, but he is willing to undertake community service and that is something which Mr Landick has urged upon us on his behalf.  We are told today that he is willing to undertake probation although he is unsure what he will derive from it.

3.        Applying the criteria in Harrison-v-AG JLR 111 the Crown seek a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment taking into account the mitigation.  Turning to that mitigation, the defendant has pleaded guilty and has provided us with references and a letter of remorse.  We have taken all of this into account and indeed everything that Mr Landick has said to us on the defendant's behalf, but we have concluded that this offence is too serious to warrant a community based sentence, in that at the end of the day the defendant broke open the door of this 54 year old victim's flat and punched her in the face.  However in the context of the Harrison criteria we do not think the Crown has given sufficient weight to the issue of provocation.  The defendant went upstairs to find his partner being assaulted and in trying to extricate her he was bitten on the hand causing the injuries which we have seen on the photographs and as reported by the doctor.  In our view this feature warrants a reduction in the sentence to be imposed upon the defendant.

4.        You are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG JLR 111.