Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - breach of Probation Order.

[2015]JRC057

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 March 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Matthew Charles Harris

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

An agreed factual basis was provided by the defendant for Count 1.  He had been in a volatile relationship with his girlfriend.  He had taken some Ethylphenidate (NPS) and was still suffering the effects of that drug.  He sent his girlfriend threatening voicemail messages and then messages declaring his feelings for her in that they should go away together.  One message referred to him sitting at a neighbour's home surrounded by knives. 

He had armed himself with a 10 inch kitchen knife and then had gone looking for his girlfriend.  He had attended at 07:15 hours at the home address of a friend of his girlfriend.  He spoke to the female occupant who described the defendant as being very paranoid, erratic and repetitive.  His voice was loud and he was shouting and swearing.  He would then become apologetic.  After about 5 minutes he left.  However 5 minutes later he returned and the conversation with the female occupant continued on the same theme as before talking about his girlfriend. 

The male occupant who during the first conversation had been hiding out of the way behind the door now appeared in front of the defendant and the defendant pulled out the knife.  He held out the knife and pointed it in the direction of the male's upper body.  The knife was one to two feet away and was being waved about.  The defendant told the male to back off.  He then put the knife away.  The whole incident with the knife lasted less than 30 seconds.  Both occupants of the property described that they were in shock and very frightened for each other.  They were concerned at the unpredictable nature of the defendant.  They described the defendant as being very unstable and threatening.  They calmed the defendant down and gave him a cigarette and he apologised and then left.  

Thereafter he returned the knife to the home address of the associate that he had been visiting earlier and he then left the estate.  He was subsequently arrested by armed Police Officers.  In interview he admitted visiting the address and speaking to both the male and female occupants but denied having a knife and denied threatening anybody with a knife. 

In its approach to sentencing the Crown had regard to the relevant factors in the case of Harrison v AG.  Even though there was no physical injury here, the graveness of the offence was the production of the knife in public and the putting in fear of the victim and the female occupant.  The Crown contended that an immediate custodial sentence was required. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

The defendant did not have the benefit of youth or good character.  He had not been co-operative with the Police.  He entered a not guilty plea before the Magistrate's Court but guilty plea on Indictment.  The defendant was reluctant to discuss his drug use at or around the time of the offence.  Given his aggressive, volatile and unpredictable behaviour this was a concern. 

The Defence

The defendant's offence was at the lower end of scale of knife crimes.  He did not provide any explanation as to why he armed himself with the knife.  The offence was out of character.  Guilty plea; first serious offence of violence; character references and letter of remorse.  He had support in the community from parents and girlfriend.  The defendant was described as being at a crossroads given his extensive criminal record for drug offences and the fact that he had spent approximately 12½ years in custody.  The defendant invited the Court to consider a non-custodial so that he could address his underlying drug problem.  Described as a private person but was now committed to overcome his drug problems. 

Previous Convictions:

13 convictions for a total of 49 offences including common assault, attempted robbery, receiving stolen goods, supply/possession of drugs, importation of controlled drugs, larceny, conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Probation Order

Total: 21 months' imprisonment.

Discharge of the Probation Order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant was to be sentenced for a charge of grave and criminal assault and as a result also to be sentenced for two offences to which he had previously been placed on probation.  Those charges were for possession of drugs and acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace.  The facts of the grave and criminal assault were serious although in terms of knife crime at the lower end of the scale.  For no apparent reason took knife with him and threatened victim.  The use of a knife is a seriously aggravating factor.  It is accepted by counsel that the use of a knife must inevitably lead to a custodial sentence.  It was right in principle for the defendant to receive a custodial sentence.  In this case two aggravating features:-

1.      Domestic violence situation albeit noted partner standing by him. 

2.      Use of NPS.  Looking at the Social Enquiry Report it was clear that the defendant's problem with drugs went to the heart of the matter. 

The Court had taken into account his letter of remorse and the references.  He was at a crossroads and needed to think carefully whilst in custody as to what he was going to do with the rest of his life.  The Court was going to send the defendant to prison but would reduce the Crown's conclusions due to the mitigation and because of totality.  The Court commended the victim and his girlfriend for the way in which they had dealt with the situation in an entirely appropriate manner. 

Breach of Probation Order

Total: 15 months' imprisonment. 

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on a charge of grave and criminal assault and as a result of that conviction on two counts in respect of which you were earlier put on probation but you breached the Probation Order and so are to be sentenced for possession of a controlled drug and acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace. 

2.        The facts of the grave and criminal assault, which is the more serious of the offences, are that although in terms of knife crime it falls at the lower end of the scale you, nonetheless, for no reason that we can identify, took a knife and threatened victims with it.  The Court has said many times that the use of a knife is a seriously aggravating factor and you will have been told that by your counsel.  It may be out of character but the use of a knife is serious and it almost inevitably results in a custodial sentence, and so we do not think that it is wrong in principle at all, we think it is right in principle to give you a custodial sentence in this case. 

3.        I want you to listen carefully please and it would be for your good that you do so.  In this case there are two aggravating factors.  One of them is the domestic violence in your relationship - we have noted that your partner is standing by you which is good - and the other aggravating factor is the use of the psychoactive substance; and when we look at your record and look at the social enquiry report, it is absolutely clear that your problem with drugs goes right to the heart of your offending.  We are going to send you to prison now but we have taken into account your letter and the other references which have been given, because we think there is just a chance that you are at a crossroads and you do need to think carefully about how you are going to make sense of the rest of your life.  We have to punish you today for what you have done and we are going to send you to prison but we are going to reduce the conclusions which the Crown has moved for, having regard to the various items of mitigation and, in particular, having regard to the totality principle so that we sentence you for a total which seems to us to be right, taking your conduct into account. 

4.        We think that the right sentence on totality grounds is that you should go to prison on the grave and criminal assault for a period of 14 months and on each of the other two charges, where you have been referred, for a period of 1 month consecutive to the 14 but concurrent with each other, making a total therefore of 15 months' imprisonment. 

5.        You have served an amount of time already.  We want you to know that if it is true that you are at a crossroads, then you have got hope to look forward to and you need to concentrate for the rest of the time that you are in custody on how you are going to tackle drug abuse because that really is at the heart of the problems that you have. 

6.        So you are sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment on grave and criminal assault; 1 month for the possession of controlled drugs, consecutive, and 1 month on the acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace, concurrent with the drug charge but consecutive to the grave and criminal assault, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment.  You need to think hard when you are in custody. 

7.        The other thing the Court would like to add is that we wish to commend the victims in this case, Advocate Gollop, who behaved with extraordinarily sensible restraint in a difficult problem facing them and we should be grateful if you would pass that on to them.  We think they behaved very commendably indeed. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Vale [2003] JRC 201.