Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - affray.

[2015]JRC096

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 May 2015

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Fisher and Liston

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew James Richomme

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

1 count of:

Affray (Count 1).

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of New Year's Day the defendant returned to the home he shared with his mother.  His 17-year-old brother and several other teenagers were present.  An argument between the defendant and his mother arose, and the defendant began shouting and swearing.  He swept crockery and glasses off the work surfaces, causing them to smash on the floor.  His brother intervened and punched the defendant.  A struggle ensued during which the defendant placed his brother in a headlock and punched him twice to the face.  The brother's 16-year-old girlfriend and two of his friends (aged 15 and 16) tried to pull the brothers apart, and the defendant took a knife and held it to his own throat.  The defendant's mother described the scene as "absolute chaos", and was afraid that he would slit his throat.  The three teenage girls present were hysterical and crying.  Several witnesses described being frightened and one was concerned that the defendant would turn the knife on others. 

As police officers arrived at the house, the defendant discarded the knife and left the house.  He returned and ran towards the police officers.  The officer warned him that CS spray would be used and the defendant simulated stabbing himself in the abdomen.  Once the officers established he no longer had a knife, the defendant was arrested.  The defendant began to scream, saying he was in intense pain and needed to go to hospital.  An ambulance was called, but the defendant became verbally abusive and aggressive.  He was therefore transported to Police Headquarters in a marked police car.  During the journey he started to cry and said that he had taken NPSs. 

On arrival at the custody suite, the defendant complained of chest pains.  He was therefore taken to Accident and Emergency at the General Hospital.  At the Hospital, he was verbally abusive to the officers and behaved in an erratic manner.  He was rude and aggressive towards hospital staff and refused to cooperate with medical tests. 

In interview, the defendant blamed his brother and mother for the incident.  The defendant admitted he had taken NPSs, which he called "legal highs".  He told the officers that he needs help with mental health issues, and described himself as depressed.  His demeanour varied wildly during interview.  At times he was angry, standing up and gesticulating, at others he sat with his head in his hands, crying. 

Breach offences see AG v Richomme [2014] JRC 240A. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown:-

Guilty plea; age; difficult background; mental health problems. 

The Defence:-

Brother threw the first punch; the affray was at lower end of the scale, no intention to harm others; constructive use of time in custody; engaging with support services; submitted that the 4 months on remand was sufficient punishment in the circumstances and that a non-custodial sentence should be imposed. 

Previous Convictions:

23 previous convictions.  In December 2014, he received a non-custodial sentence for illegal entry with intent to commit a crime, assault on a police officer and drunk and disorderly (the breach offences). 

Conclusions:

Due to the defendant's youth and mental health problems, the Crown moved that the sentences for the breach offences and the Indictment offences be made concurrent. 

Credit was given for the hours of community service served, but otherwise the conclusions for the breach offences reflected those sought at the first sentencing.  

Count 1:

6 months' youth detention, concurrent to breach offences.

Breach offences

Count 1:	16 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	3 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 3:	1 week's youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 19 months' youth detention. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

6 months' youth detention, concurrent to the Breach offences.

Breach offences

Count 1:	15 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	3 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 3:	1 week's youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' youth detention.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        On 3^rd December, 2014, (AG-v-Richomme [2014] JRC 240A) you appeared before the Court for an assault on a police officer and a nasty illegal entry with an element of intimidation. 

2.        The Court said it was going to give you a last chance because of your youth and I am going to remind you what the Court said on that occasion:-

"We wanted to make it clear to you that we really have taken a chance for you today.  It is a considerable risk on our part but we think that your youth deserves that chance.  It is really now up to you.  If you do not comply with this Community Service Order, if you do not comply with the Probation Order, if you do not attend interviews or appointments, you will come back here and we will almost certainly send you to prison."

3.        The warning could not have been clearer Mr Richomme, but despite that, only a month later you committed this affray, as described by the Crown Advocate.  We accept that it was in the family home and towards the lower end of the scale as affrays go, but it was clearly very frightening for some of those who were present.  We also accept that the knife was used only to threaten self-harm, but as the Court said in the case of AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132 the vice of knife crime is that one can never predict how somebody in possession of a knife will react to events. 

4.        Now article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you, but we are satisfied that you have shown a repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, you have been given a number of them, you have breached them frequently and now you have breached a non-custodial sentence again. 

5.        Advocate Bell, who has said everything that could be said on your behalf, has referred us to what the Court said in the case of AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182 and in particular he referred us to this passage, quoting from an English case before that.  In relation to youth it is said "the recognition that in consequence sentencing them should place greater emphasis on rehabilitation and less on retribution and deterrent's than in the case of adults."  We entirely agree with that and that, no doubt, is why the Court gave you the chance in December; but where young offenders are given a chance and they fail to take advantage of it, then we are afraid that they must take the consequences. 

6.        Now we take into account the mitigation that Advocate Bell has put forward.  You pleaded guilty from the outset which is to your credit; we have read the background report which describes your very difficult background; we have of course taken into account your youth and we have also read your letter of remorse and the references and the letter that your mother has written and which was handed up today.  But nevertheless we cannot impose a non-custodial sentence in view of your failure to respond.  As I have just indicated, adults and young offenders have to understand that if they fail to take advantage of the opportunities given to them by the Court they will pay the penalty.  But we are very pleased to hear of the progress you have been making in youth detention and that you are taking advantage of the courses there.  We urge you to continue to do so because, if you do, what that means is that when you are released you will be in a much better position to move forward with your life and we hope very much that that can be done. 

7.        Now where a person is sentenced for offences committed in breach of probation or community service, the sentences should normally be consecutive, as the Crown Advocate has said, because otherwise there is no real punishment for the new offending.  But on this occasion the Crown has exceptionally asked that they be concurrent in view of your youth, and we can understand why that was so; because of your youth and in particular because of the progress you have made on remand, we are going to reduce the conclusions very slightly. 

8.        The sentences are as follows:- on the Breach offences, Count 1; 15 months' youth detention, on Count 2; 3 months' youth detention, on Count 3; 1 week's youth detention, the 3 months being consecutive to the 15 months, making 18 months' and 1 week's youth detention, concurrent.  On the Count of affray on the Indictment it is 6 months' youth detention but, as we say, exceptionally we will make this concurrent so that is 18 months' youth detention in all.  I must tell you that you may be liable to supervision when you are released. 

Authorities

AG-v-Richomme [2014] JRC 240A.

AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182.

AG-v-Burrell and others [2003] JLR N53.

Louis-v-AG [2010] JLR N 45.