Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2015]JRC053

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 March 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Jason Mark Le Chevere

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

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant and victim were neighbours who happened to meet in the street after drinking separately.  They argued and the defendant called the victim a "Paki".  Approximately ten minutes later they resumed their argument and the defendant removed his watch, punched the victim to the face knocking him to the ground, kicked him in the face approximately three times, placed him in a headlock and repeatedly punched him for some forty seconds.  The injuries consisted of cuts, bruises, and a minor fracture below the right eye with some ongoing discomfort.

Details of Mitigation:

Belated guilty plea; accepted witness' account of facts, and most of the responsibility; carer for children; no convictions for violence for 15 years; some retribution between families of victim and defendant. 

Previous Convictions:

Fifty-six previous convictions including two offences of violence.

Conclusions:

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 2½ years' from the date of sentencing. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court took account of the defendant's young children in reducing the conclusions to 21 months' custody. 

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 2½ years' from the date of sentencing. 

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        After an evening's drinking you encountered the victim in this case; there seems to have been a somewhat heated conversation when others were present and you were heard by one of them to refer to him as a "paki".  Not long afterwards the two of you found yourselves in the Millennium Park and you were seen by an independent observer to take off your watch and then punch the victim causing him to fall to the ground.  You then kicked him three times to the face following which you held him in a headlock, punching him repeatedly.  The victim suffered cuts and bruising and a small fracture below his right eye.  It is fortunate he was not injured more seriously but it is nevertheless clear that there are some continuing effects.  He continues to suffer numbness in that area and that may even be permanent.  It is also clear from the victim impact statement that the assault has affected him and made him feel scared about going out at night. 

2.        Now Advocate Fogarty has spoken in mitigation on your behalf.  She has emphasised the fact that you have pleaded guilty, although it was rather late in the day; she has accepted you have a poor record in the past, including a grave and criminal assault, but we are most impressed with the fact that you seemed to have turned things around and you have been out of trouble for some 15 years or so, except for a couple of drunk and disorderly charges, and the last one of those was in 2008, so that is some 7 years ago.  She has pointed to the contents of the background report; she has emphasised the fact that although you have not worked for 15 years, you have played a major role in looking after your young family of five children.  We have read the letter from your partner and the other letters which have been handed up. 

3.        However, the Court has a clear policy on offences of violence, particularly when drink-fuelled.  They result in a prison sentence save in exceptional circumstances.  Now the only possible exceptional factor in this case is the effect that there would be on your five children of a prison sentence, given that your partner works at night.  However, you should have thought of that before you committed this offence and the effect on your children will be your responsibility not that of the victim or the Court.  We have considered their position very carefully but we have concluded that we cannot avoid a prison sentence in this case. 

4.        The 2 years moved for by the Crown was the correct sentence for what you did but we are going to reduce it slightly to reflect the effect on your children, which we have considered.  So the sentence of the Court is one of 21 months' imprisonment. 

5.        We also make an Exclusion Order as requested by the Crown for 2½ years' from today.  

6.        We are just going to add one other thing for the people who are in the Court.  It has been said to us that there have been some measure of retribution.  We are not finding that is the case, we do not know.  But what we want to say is that the Court has now dealt with this matter, the defendant will pay his punishment.  There is to be no retribution and if there were to be, the Court would take a strong line in relation to that sort of conduct; so we hope that that message is clearly understood. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

AG v Anderson [2013] JRC 230.

AG v Vieira [2012] JRC 129.

AG v Stearn [2013] JRC 185.

AG v McGinty and McSorley [2006] JRC 115.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey 3rd Edition.