Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - drugs - possession - Class B - assault - malicious damage.

[2014]JRC195

Royal Court

(Samedi)

10 October 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul David William Le Geyt

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

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1 was caught on CCTV footage.  It started at Charing Cross and finished in the Accident and Emergency Department reception area.  The defendant was intoxicated at the time.  He commenced with a head-butt to the victim and included a scuffle involving punches and kicks with the defendant dragging his victim into the middle of the road preventing traffic from passing.  The victim was pursued by the defendant from Charing Cross up the Parade and into the A&E Department.  The defendant was seen to knee the victim in the face who at the time was sitting down with his head in his hands.  The defendant left the scene and was pursued by the Police and caught.  The victim declined to make a statement of complaint.  The assault lasted 8 minutes.  The Crown applied the Harrison v AG factors to this offence. 

Whilst in custody, officers noted a deterioration in the defendant's behaviour and he started making strange comments.  Two plastic bags (one chewed) and a small residue of white powder were recovered from the defendant and his cell.  On analysis it was found to be a Class B drug - Ethylphenidate (Count 2). 

The defendant was living with his mother.  He returned home and an argument ensued which soon escalated to violence.  The defendant smashed her television, 2 mugs, a glass and a candlestick holder.  He threw a knife at the window which caused the window to smash.  He also damaged laminate flooring in flat.  Total cost of damage caused was £500 which the defendant had paid and/or replaced the broken items (Count 4).  He had then assaulted his mother by grabbing her by the throat and poking her in the left eye causing a small cut.  The mother had called the police but the defendant had left by the time the Police arrived and had to be chased and eventually arrested (Count 3). 

The defendant was in custody and had been charged with offences giving rise to Counts 1 and 2 on the Indictment.  He was told that he would be remanded in custody.  The defendant leaped up and attempted to attack the Centenier but his path was blocked by Sergeant Lucas who took the full force of the defendant's attack.  The Sergeant was knocked to the ground with the defendant on top of him.  During the ensuing struggle the defendant punched the Sergeant at least twice to the face.  A total of seven officers were involved in restraining the defendant who was then placed in a cell.  Throughout this process the defendant violently struggled and was abusive to the officers.  During the cell placement process he also spat towards the Sergeant.  This was the second occasion that this Sergeant had been assaulted by the defendant. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas entered on Indictment.  Appalling record including 8 previous convictions for grave and criminal assault, 14 for common assault and 6 for assaults on police.  Assessed at high risk of re-conviction and posed a risk of harm to the community.  Reluctance to accept responsibility for his actions and problems with emotional regulation.  Not followed the advice of the Court on a previous occasion to avoid conflict with the police and to behave when dealing with them. 

The Defence

Acknowledged offences were serious.  A young man aged 23.  Still had time to change his life.  He had already spent a large part of life in prison.  Difficult background.  Risk of institutionalisation.  Now motivated to change and improve - he could be a worthwhile citizen.  Apologies/remorse.  He urged the Court to give him an opportunity to prove that he could be a worthwhile member of society by placing him on Probation/Community Service.   Lengthy letter of remorse provided to the Court. 

Previous Convictions:

34 convictions for a total of 147 offences.  He had 8 previous convictions for grave and criminal assault, 20 offences for assaults including assaults upon police together with other offences of affray and resisting arrest and conduct likely to cause breach of the peace.  Offences for breaking and entry, larceny, malicious damage, possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply and motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

Total: 2½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant had been told on a previous occasion that his future lay in his hands.  He had not turned the corner as the Court had hoped and within 6 months of being released had committed five offences.  Grave and criminal assault including following the victim to the A&E Department and kneeing him in the head.  Very frightening for the victim and others present.  The A&E Department was a place where people were entitled to be left in peace.  Assault on Police Sergeant required seven officers to subdue him.  Police officers undertake their duties to protect the community and are therefore entitled to protection.  The Court noted the appalling criminal record.  Noted high risk of re-offending.  The Court had had regard to defendant's letter and everything that had been said on his behalf by counsel.  It took into account guilty plea and the fact that malicious damage had been paid for.  The Court did not agree that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate.  The sentence had to be one of prison.  The Court had regard to Harrison and were going to increase the sentence given his previous record.  The Court did not consider the Crown's Conclusions for 2½ years imprisonment enough. 

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate E. L. Wakeling for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The last time you were before the Court the Deputy Bailiff said that your future lay in your hands.  Unfortunately you have not turned the corner as perhaps was hoped at that time because, within 6 months of your release from prison, you have committed all the offences for which you are now before us.  They consist of the grave and criminal assault on the victim, the assault on your mother with the accompanying malicious damage, and the assault on a police sergeant at the police station, as well as the possession of ethylphenidate. 

2.        The grave and criminal assault on the victim included following the victim into the Accident and Emergency Department at the Hospital and kneeing him in the head as he sat there.  This must have been very frightening for others who were there; the Department is a place that people are entitled to expect to be left in peace.  As to the assault on the police sergeant, the level of violence which you inflicted, or were wishing to inflict, was such that it required seven police officers to subdue you.  The Court takes a particularly serious view of assaults on police officers who undertake their duties in order to protect the rest of us. 

3.        You have an appalling record with eight previous convictions for grave and criminal assault, twenty previous convictions for assault, including on police officers, as well as public order offences, and not surprisingly, you are assessed by the Probation Service as being at high risk of reoffending. 

4.        We have read your letter and you say in it that you have now seen the error of your ways and you hope very much to try and turn the corner and turn your life around.  We hope very much that that is true but it has to be said that you have said nothing of this sort to the Probation Service when you saw them.  Nevertheless we have carefully considered all you say in your letter.

5.        We have taken into account the fact that you did plead guilty to all these offences, your troubled background and everything which Advocate Wakeling has most eloquently said on your behalf.  She said everything that could be said.  But we cannot agree with her suggestion that we can impose a non-custodial penalty; it has to be prison and we can only hope that you take advantage of some of the courses which are on offer there. 

6.        As to the length of sentence, the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 makes it clear that where there are previous convictions of a similar type, this leads to an increased starting point and therefore to an increased sentence.  In our view, given your previous record and the fact that you are now before us for three separate occasions of violence, the total of 2½ years moved for by the Crown is not enough.  So the sentence we are going to impose is as follows. 

7.        On Count 1, the grave and criminal assault; 2 years, on Count 2, possession of the drug; 2 months' imprisonment and that is to be consecutive to Count 1.  On Count 3, the assault on your mother; 4 months' imprisonment, consecutive, on Count 4, the malicious damage; 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3, on Count 5, the assault on the police officer; 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive.  That makes a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

8.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Le Geyt [2010] JRC 171.

AG-v-Le Geyt [2012] JRC 178.