Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2014]JRC084

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 March 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Adam Edward Housley

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  27.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had been in a brief sexual relationship with a female which ended acrimoniously a short time before these events, when she made allegations to Police that the defendant had assaulted her.  The following day the female, accompanied by another man, confronted the defendant in Aquila Road.  There was an exchange of blows between the men, they grabbed hold of one another and fell to the ground.  At some point the defendant bit the other man's ear, tearing it almost completely away from his head.  The defendant then ran from the scene.  The victim was operated on and the ear reattached.  Police visited a number of addresses but were unable to locate the defendant for two days.  He was contacted by mobile phone on Sunday 10^th November, 2013 and agreed to attend at Police headquarters.  When he did he was arrested.  He also provided a false address.  He was assessed as being at high risk of reconviction, due to being an unemployed drug user of no fixed abode.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has previous convictions for drug offences, theft, threatening behaviour and possessing an offensive weapon, but no record for assault.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq. Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        There have been conflicting versions of events in this case, but we are going to sentence you on the version of events which has been put forward by your Advocate today.  That is that the victim and the girl involved stopped their car, they confronted you and shouting then ensued.  You were then punched once in the back of the head by the victim and you punched him back once.  You and the victim then grabbed hold of each other and at some stage you then bit his ear.  You and he fell to the ground whilst still holding on to each other.  The result of this was that the victim's ear was torn, and it was torn away so much that it was almost entirely separated from his head and was left hanging; we have seen the photographs of the injury.  Fortunately it was sewn back again and although he is left with scarring, no part of the ear is missing.  We pay tribute to the surgeons who managed to achieve that.  We also accept therefore that there was provocation, but it is quite clear that your response was out of all proportion to the provocation offered. 

2.        Advocate Bell on your behalf has put forward mitigation.  He has emphasised your guilty plea and the fact that you might have tried to argue self-defence, so we certainly accept that it is a guilty plea of value.  We note that, although you have some previous convictions for public order offences many years ago, they were when you were young, you have no previous for assaults, and apart from one offence in 2012, you have kept out of trouble for many years.

3.        You have unfortunately developed a drug addiction in recent years and that has meant you have not worked since 2009, but we have read your letter and the other references and we accept that you are remorseful for what has occurred. 

4.        Despite all this the Court has said on more than one occasion that assaults which involve biting are treated very seriously and the reason is that it is impossible to predict the gravity of the injuries.  Your Advocate put forward and we accept, that you did not intend to cause injuries of this seriousness, but once you bite someone's ear then it is a question of fortuity as to what occurs and the gravity of the injury, particularly if the biter does not let go.  The leading English case of Attorney General's Reference (No.60 of 1996) R v Hartnett (1997) Cr. App; R. (s) 198, suggested sentences in the region of 3 years after a trial, obviously varying and depending on the circumstances. 

5.        We have carefully considered the mitigation put forward.  We have taken into account that there was provocation, we have also taken into account all the mitigation available on the papers before us.  Nevertheless, we do not think that a custodial sentence can be avoided for an offence of this nature.  However, we do think that, having regard to all the mitigation we have described, we can reduce the conclusion a little.

6.        The sentence of the Court is one of 18 months' imprisonment and we do not make a Compensation Order in the circumstances.

Authorities

Attorney General's reference No.60 of 1996 Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. R v Hartnett (1997) Cr. App. R. (s) 198.

AG -v-Sampson [2003] JRC 146.

AG-v-Afonso [2013] JRC 190.

AG-v-Stirling [2011] JRC 179.

AG-v-Bannon [2003] JRC 190.

AG-v-Gouveia and Uddin [2010] JRC 189.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.