Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2015]JRC081

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 April 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Zoe Louise Hill

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

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant struck her partner of 19 years, on the head with a part-full wine bottle.  They had been out to a celebratory birthday dinner the previous evening, followed by dancing at nightclubs, then on to a private house party; they were both heavily intoxicated.  At the house party the defendant became upset by the manner in which another guest spoke to her.  The defendant asked her partner to leave with her, but instead he told the guest not to speak to the defendant in that manner again and told the defendant to 'calm down'.  The defendant left on her own but returned shortly after when she realised she had left her mobile telephone behind and that her partner had their house keys.  The defendant again asked her partner to leave with her, he refused and in her eyes appeared now more supportive of the guest; the defendant struck her partner over the head, probably more than once, with a bottle of wine she had been carrying home.  Single laceration to scalp, 5cm x 0·5cm, which the defendant tended to immediately, then got a taxi home together.  The police called at the house party, went to the defendant's home address where she was arrested.  The defendant's partner did not wish to make a complaint, however attended the police station two days later for FME to see and photograph wound while saying 'nothing happened'. 

Details of Mitigation:

No deliberation, immediate remorse, immediate admission on interview.  Guilty plea tendered on first appearance before Magistrate.  No serious injury.  Psychiatric Report indicated mild depressive episodes and a risk assessment concluded the incident was related to "frustration caused by a lack of communication leading to interpersonal couple violence fuelled by alcohol misuse."  No previous convictions, excellent character and employment references, therefore of previous good character. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises except for the Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the Ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 12 months from the date of sentence. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Crown's Conclusions granted, save for the Exclusion Order, which the Court chose not to impose in light of her employment and that the incident took place inside private premises.

No Exclusion Order made.

E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. E. Dale for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains one charge of grave and criminal assault which you committed in January this year on your partner in some private accommodation.  The circumstances in particular were that you picked up a semi-full bottle of wine and struck him several times over the head with it.  It caused lacerations and bleeding and, immediately after the assault, you were sorry and you tried to tend the wound.  There is no doubt that the assault was influenced by the alcohol which you had consumed. 

2.        The immediacy of your remorse was shown not only by your tending to him after hitting him, but also your conduct on interview and your early guilty plea; and, indeed, everything you have said to the psychiatrist and to the social enquiry officers shows that you are remorseful.  The Court has noted that there has been no permanent injury, but you yourself will have asked yourself what could have happened because the assault could have caused really serious injury and you are fortunate that it did not. 

3.        There was no provocation behind this assault; you may well feel that your partner was unsupportive given the challenges that you faced that evening but none of that comes close to justifying the assault which you committed and you know that. 

4.        You have considerable amounts of mitigation apart from your remorse; you are aged 36 and of good character, with no previous convictions of any kind; you are assessed at being of low risk of reconviction by the probation officer, and as far as the psychiatrist is concerned, he says that you are at very low risk of future acts of violence.  There is no doubt that this whole incident will have been something of a tsunami in your life because it will have taken over the relationships which you had and undoubtedly put them at severe risk in the future. 

5.        The Court is satisfied that this was a very unusual offence.  Normally a grave and criminal assault using a bottle of this kind, influenced by alcohol, would result in a custodial sentence.  On this occasion we are going to avoid that because we think it was exceptional. 

6.        In the circumstances you are sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service Order.  If we had been imposing a custodial sentence it would have been 12 months' imprisonment.  I must warn you, as you heard me say earlier, in relation to the previous case, if there is any difficulty in the performance of the Community Service Order, you are liable to be brought back and sentenced again.  We are also going to impose a 12 month Probation Order and that means that you must act in accordance with the directions of the probation officer and you will have seen from the social enquiry report that there are a number of suggestions which the probation officer makes and no doubt will speak to you about in the course of the Probation Order, but it is clear that alcohol consumption is something that you need to address.  In the light of your employment and in the light of the fact that the offence was not committed on licensed premises, we have decided that we will not impose an Exclusion Order in this case and the sentence therefore is a Probation Order of 12 months and 180 hours' community service. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG v Da Silva [2011] JRC 113.

AG v Roche [2014] JRC 059.

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

AG v Conway [2008] JRC 060.

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998.