Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Cox [2014] JRC 115 (23 May 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2014/2014_115.html
Cite as: [2014] JRC 115
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Kerley and Crill. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Michelle Bernice Cox
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Illegal entry with intent to commit a crime (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Grave and criminal assault (Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Assault (Count 4). |
|
1 count of : |
Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 5). |
Age: 30.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Illegal entry, grave and criminal assault and assault
Following the breakup of her relationship with Jeff Sa, Cox, who was five months pregnant, went to his home (where he lived with his parents) in order to confront him. Uninvited and without knocking, Cox entered the house and walked up the stairs. Mr Sa was standing part way down the stairs with his new girlfriend behind him. Cox was shouting, calling Ms Nogueira a "whore" and threatening to kill her. Mr Sa put his arms out to stop Cox going any further. Cox put her hands each side of his torso, and dug her nails in, scratching Mr Sa. She then bit Mr Sa on the abdomen, before scratching him to the face and shoulders. She made a second, unsuccessful attempt to bite Mr Sa.
Cox was removed from the house by Mr Sa's father. While outside, she spat at Mr Sa's mother, the spittle hitting her face. She remained outside, repeatedly shouting "I'll fucking kill you". Police officers arrived on the scene, both of whom were wearing body-worn cameras. The footage shows that Cox was extremely distressed and abusive. She repeatedly claimed that her waters had broken. Cox admitted that she had assaulted Mr Sa and claimed that she had been assaulted.
Driving uninsured
Cox called the police to report damage to her car. It transpired that she was not insured.
Breach of Magistrate's Court Probation Order
These offences were committed in breach of a Magistrate's Court probation order imposed for larceny and two counts of obtaining money by false pretences.
Assessed as being at very high risk of reconviction.
Details of Mitigation:
The Crown
Guilty plea, abstinent from drugs at the time of sentencing, pregnancy (though the Crown submitted that, in the circumstances, this did not constitute exceptional circumstances).
The Defence
Grave and criminal assault at lower end of scale, pregnancy, the child would go into care if a custodial sentence was imposed. Had complied with bail conditions.
Previous Convictions:
40 previous convictions, which include four grave and criminal assaults. She has breached non-custodial orders on several occasions.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
1 year's imprisonment. |
|
Count 3: |
18 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, together with disqualification from driving for a period of 6 months. |
Breach of Probation Order
1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Total: 19 months' imprisonment together with disqualification from driving for a period of 6 months.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Crown was absolutely correct to recommend prison, but the Court was just persuaded to take a chance and impose a non-custodial sentence.
|
Count 2: |
150 hours' Community Service Order. |
|
Count 3: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
50 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
120 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, together with disqualification from driving for a period of 9 months. |
Breach of Probation Order:
10 hours' Community Service Order, consecutive to Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5.
10 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.
10 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.
Total: 190 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 13 months' imprisonment, together with disqualification from driving for a period of 9 months.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You had been in a relationship with the victim in this case until two weeks before the incident and you were 5 months pregnant at the time. On the day in question you went round to his parents' home where he was staying with his new girlfriend, you went in uninvited and you confronted him. You caused a considerable scene and then you attacked him by scratching him and biting him in the stomach. Having been persuaded to leave the house and get back into your car you then spat at the victim's mother, hitting her in the face with your spittle. You were clearly completely out of control. And it is not the first time you have done it. You have got a number of previous convictions including two previous convictions for grave and criminal assault. And the reports describe your life to date as chaotic. You are also in breach of a Probation Order by what you have done on this occasion.
2. In those circumstances we can only say that the Crown was absolutely correct to recommend that you go to prison. But we have had to give careful thought to the future of your child who is to be born very shortly. If the child is born in prison then you will be separated and it seems likely from what we are told that the child would be taken into care and probably put up for adoption.
3. The probation report says that there is no point in making a probation order or a treatment order because you have shown absolutely no inclination to cooperate with these sort of orders before. But you were granted bail a few weeks ago and we note that you appear to have been drug free since then and we hope that means that you really are determined to try and overcome your drug dependency for the sake of your child as well as for your own sake.
4. We have thought very carefully about this. You deserve to go to prison and, were it not for the imminent birth of your child, you would be going to prison. But we have just been persuaded that we ought to take a chance, even though it is described in the probation report as being very high risk and we agree that it is. But you say that you want a chance to show you can be a mother to your child, so we are going to give you a chance to show that you can. So your future and the future of your child is entirely in your hands. If you can show that you really have turned over a new leaf and can live up to the responsibilities of being a mother, then perhaps there is a future for you and your child together, although it is not in this Court's hands, it is a matter for the Children's Service and another court. But you will give yourself and your child a chance. But if you revert to drug-taking, if you fail to carry out the sentence that we are just about to impose or, of course, if you re-offend, then you will be back here and if it is for breach of the order there can only be one outcome; you will go to prison, regardless of what happens to your child at that stage. You will have lost the one chance we are giving you. Do you understand that?
5. We are going to impose community service. We think that that is preferable to a suspended sentence because we think that you should try and find some discipline in your life carrying out work to benefit the community. We do ask though the community service organisers to show flexibility in the period running up to the birth of your child and immediately following, and should it be the case that you go to Orchard House, that will obviously have to take precedence over the community service at that stage. But nevertheless you must carry out the community service that we are going to order.
6. We think that the correct prison sentence, had we been sending you to prison, given the very unusual circumstances of this assault, would have been one of 15 months' imprisonment and we think there should have been 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive for the breach of probation. So that would have been a total of 16 months' imprisonment. Now you have served the equivalent of 3 months on remand and we think the community service must take that into account. So we are going to pass community service, which is the equivalent of 13 months' imprisonment; that is 190 hours in total.
7. We reach that total as follows: on Count 2; 150 hours, on Count 3; 180 hours, on Count 4; 50 hours, on Count 5; 120 hours, all of those concurrent; for the breach of probation, 10 hours, concurrent on each of the charges but consecutive to the other community service, making therefore the total of 190 hours; and on the driving offence you are disqualified for 9 months. This is your chance, if you cannot do it then you will be brought back and you will go to prison. The sentence of the Court therefore is a total of 190 hours community service in the way I have described and disqualification for 9 months. As we say it is up to you.
Authorities
AG v Cox [2009] JRC 209.