Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault.

[2015]JRC088

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 April 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Kelvin Peter Monet

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

Age:  35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 17^th August, 2014, Monet assaulted a 17-year-old boy in an alley off Waterloo Street.  After a hostile exchange of words, Monet took hold of the victim's clothes in the lapel area.  The victim, who suffers from autism, began to shout loudly for help.  Monet released him, causing him to fall to the ground.  The victim continued to shout loudly for help and Monet, intending to stop him, leant over him and once more took hold of his clothes, trying to pull him to his feet.  Residents and passers-by, having heard the victim's shouts for help, arrived on the scene and told Monet to leave, which he did.  The victim was very distressed, had trouble breathing and appeared to be in shock.  He suffered no injuries save a superficial abrasion to his elbow. 

Monet was arrested initially charged with attempted robbery.  In his first interview he gave "no comment" answers.  Following a PROMAT identification parade, Monet was re-interviewed.  He again declined to answer questions. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown:

Guilty plea (plea to assault was only offered several months after the trial dates were fixed), accepted that Monet did not know about the victim's condition, but did know that he was a youth. 

The Defence:

Submitted that the offence did not pass the custody threshold, assault was spontaneous and of short duration, health problems affecting the strength of his arms, wife unwell, submitted that Monet should be given full credit for his plea. 

Previous Convictions:

94 previous convictions including eight offences against the person.  The most recent conviction for violence was in 2001. 

Conclusions:

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £299.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

A custodial sentence was appropriate but would be suspended.

No Compensation Order made.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for a single count of common assault.  The facts on which you fall to be sentenced are that on 17^th August last year you, together with a friend, encountered the victim, a 17 year boy with autism, in Queen Street and walked with him some way down Halkett Place and into Waterloo Street.  Following an exchange of words you forcibly grabbed him by the lapel.  The boy shouted for help, you released him and he fell to the ground.  Whilst he was still shouting you leant over him and again took hold of his lapel to pull him up; you were then confronted by passers-by and left the victim.  Your friend had played no part in the incident. 

2.        You were not at all co-operative with the police when you were arrested on suspicion of an attempted robbery.  You were vocal and you were aggressive and you offered no explanation for your actions.  It is fair to say that you have a very poor record indeed.  You have 94 previous convictions including convictions for violence although we note that the most recent for violence was as long ago as 2001. 

3.        The Court notes that this was a relatively minor assault and, although the effect on the victim was serious and has taken him some time to recover from, he did not sustain serious injuries.  We are conscious that had you not originally been charged with robbery and grave and criminal assault you would have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court. 

4.        We have listened very carefully to all that your advocate has said on your behalf.  We have read the letter that you have sent to us and the letter from your wife and they speak well of you.  We also accept that you were unaware of the victim's autism at the time.  We note that alcohol, which so often aggravates matters of this kind, did not play a part or at least did not play a significant part.  We were asked by your Counsel to take certain matters relating to the victim into account which appear to us to have no evidentiary basis and we decline to do so. 

5.        The Courts policy about violence, any violence on the streets of St Helier, is a clear one and you have failed to respond to non-custodial measures in the past, but until this incident there was some sign that you were turning things around possibly as a result of your marriage.  Because of the Court's policy and in part because of your record and the other matters to which I have referred, we think that a custodial sentence is appropriate but we are prepared to suspend that sentence.  

6.        Accordingly you are sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment, suspended for 1 year.  Now that means that you will not go to prison if, within a year's period, you do not commit any other criminal offence for which a prison sentence could be passed, in other words if you keep your nose clean for a year then you will not have to worry about this 2 months custodial sentence. 

7.        For the reasons advanced by your counsel we are not satisfied that we should make a Compensation Order although that, of course, does not prevent the victim from making a civil claim through the Petty Debts Court should he think that that is advisable to do so. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-De Oliveira [2012] JRC 156.

AG-v-Carrel [2012] JRC 111.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.