Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - assault - malicious damage - grave and criminal assault - having in a public place an offensive weapon.

[2014]JRC061

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 March 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Jean Michael Jarman

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

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant and his then female partner had been to a party and both had consumed alcohol.  The girlfriend had returned to her home address alone.  She was woken in the early hours by the defendant.  Initially she was pleased to see him and allowed him in but he became argumentative and abusive.  He grabbed hold of her by the left shoulder forcefully and pushed her to the ground.  She sustained a sore should an d bruising on her right lower back (Count 1).  The defendant then left the property.  The victim called the Police and whilst on the telephone told the Police that the defendant had returned and tried to regain entry.  She refused him entry and was terrified by his presence.  He punched or head-butted the glass door which shattered causing £60.57 worth of damage (Count 2).  Police Officers had attended at the defendant's home address and spoke to him over the intercom advising that it was the Police and they requested him to come to the door.  The defendant's response was that he would come down and stab them.  The defendant exited the property holding a length of metal pole which he attempted to strike the Officer with (Count 3).  The Police Officers present were able to restrain him without any injury being sustained by them.  The metal pole and an open lock-knife found in his back trouser pocket were seized (Counts 4 and 5).  At Police Headquarters whilst Officers were attempting to cell place him he bit the Custody Sergeant but made contact with the Officer's fleece rather than skin (Count 6).  He then attempted to bite the fingers and subsequently the ankle of another Officer (Count 7).  No injuries were sustained by the Officers.  In interview he admitted causing the malicious damage with a head-butt but had no recollection of being in his girlfriend's address and assaulting her.  He claimed that he had the knife with him with the intention of self-harming but admitted that when he had gone to his flat door with a pole and knife it was his intention to "do whoever was at the door".  He was shown the footage from the body-worn video of one of the Officers and apologised and reiterated that he would have attached anyone as he was seeing "red" at the time.  He blamed his lack of recollection of events on his drunken condition.

He Crown's approach to sentencing was that there were 3 separate incidents with the most serious being the grave and criminal assault upon an Acting Police Sergeant (Count 3)  The Crown had regard to the factors in Harrison v AG.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas entered on indictment.  Co-operative in interview and blamed gaps in recollection on level of intoxication.  Apologetic and shocked by actions.  Expressed remorse.  Poor record including 3 previous convictions for grave and criminal assault and 2 for assaults on Police.  High risk of re-conviction.  High risk of harm to general public and risk towards Police.  Background reports refer to a traumatic and disruptive upbringing and outstanding issues to be addressed by the defendant.  Alcohol consumption remained problematic.

The Defence

Remorse.  Highlighted traumatic upbringing and ongoing issues as revealed by the background reports.  Accepted no alternative other than custody.  Offered apologies to Police Officers.  Invited the Court to have regard to totality principle.  He acknowledged he had an alcohol problem but not dependency.  References in support provided.

Previous Convictions:

 7 convictions for 16 offences including 3 grave and criminal assaults, 2 assaults on Police, possession of a controlled drug, obstruction, resisting Police, malicious damage and motoring.

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the metal pole and lock knife sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 2 years 6 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the metal pole and lock knife ordered.

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

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for seven offences committed over the course of one night in three separate incidents, all of which were committed when he was seriously intoxicated with drink. 

2.        The first incident consisted of an assault on his then girlfriend together with causing malicious damage to a pane of glass in the back door of his girlfriend's property, caused either by a punch or a head butt.  We understand from Mr Landick that the defendant is very clear that it was caused by a head butt.  Whilst fortunately the injuries sustained by his former girlfriend were minor this was, we agree, a terrifying incident for her and this particularly so when she was on the telephone to the police and the defendant had returned to her property clearly intent on re-entering the property.

3.        The second incident concerned a grave a criminal assault on Acting Police Sergeant Meikle and the possession of two offensive weapons, namely an iron bar (part of a scaffolding pole) and a lock knife.  The defendant had brought these from his flat and upon opening the front door to the block of flats had then attempted to strike Acting Police Sergeant Meikle with the pole.  The lock knife was opened and was in the defendant's back pocket.  Fortunately the officers present saw the defendant approaching and we able to take immediate action to restrain him without any injury being suffered by any of the officers present.  In interview the defendant admitted that it was his intention to attack whoever was at his door as he was seeing red at the time. 

4.        The third and final incident occurred at the Police Headquarters where police officers were trying to check his injuries and to cell place him due to his drunk and aggressive behaviour.  During the procedure he bit Custody Sergeant Kemp but he made contact with the officer's fleece rather than the skin, and in relation to PC Morgan it is perhaps more appropriate to describe it as attempted bites at the officer's right hand and then a short while later at his right ankle. 

5.        It seems to the Crown that the defendant has a history of biting people when his is involved in violent altercations.  In the Crown's view, and we agree, the most serious offence is that of Count 3, being the grave and criminal assault upon Acting Police Sergeant Meikle.

6.        The defendant has a bad record, including three previous convictions for grave and criminal assault and two for assaults on the police.  He is assessed at a high risk of reconviction and to be a high risk to the public.  He has had a very traumatic and disruptive upbringing and it is clear from the reports has an array of psychological issues that have not been addressed.

7.        The Crown, having applied the criteria in Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111, seek a total sentence of 3 years, comprising 2 years for the grave and criminal assault committed on the police officer in the second incident, and 6 months for the first and third incidents on the basis that the total sentences for each incident, whilst concurrent with each other, will be consecutive to the sentence for the other incidents.

8.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and was cooperative with the police in his interview.  In particular having seen the video of the second incident, taken by one of the officers, he was very apologetic and shocked by his actions and, we accept, has expressed remorse.  To his credit, despite his problems with alcohol he had, we understand, been abstinent for some 5 years before starting to drink again last year at weekends, and it would seem that his drinking increased with his relationship with his girlfriend.  We received a good reference from the Shelter which goes to his credit and we have considered all of the mitigation put forward on his behalf by Mr Landick.  In addition we have received a very helpful and concerned letter from the defendant's sister who, understandably, says that the defendant needs help, and we agree with that, so that he does not offend in the future.  We appreciate what she says but these offences are just too serious for us to impose a community sentence.  The first incident with the girlfriend was, as we have said, clearly terrifying for her, and the assaults on the police serious.  It was clear that anyone he came into contact with that night was in serious danger.  We have no means to order the defendant to seek treatment that is recommended but we can only express the hope that with the support of his family the defendant can seek that help both in the prison and once he is released; in particular the help that has been recommended by both the psychiatrist and the psychologist, to address his psychological problems and his alcohol problems.

9.        In terms of the sentence we do, however, regard the totality of the sentence here as being too high to reflect the criminality involved.  We wish to stress the policy of the Court to treat assaults on the police as always justifying serious punishment and we agree with the Crown that 2 years for the grave and criminal assault on Acting Police Sergeant Meikle in the second incident is appropriate.  We are, however, going to make the sentence arising out of the third incident concurrent and that will bring the total sentence down to one of 2½ years which we think properly reflects the criminality involved here.

10.      In relation to Count 1 you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment; Count 2, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent; Count 3, 2 years' imprisonment, consecutive; Count 4, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; Count 5, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; Count 6, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; and Count 7, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  Which makes a total sentence of imprisonment of 2½ years.

11.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the metal pole and lock knife.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.