Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - common assault - malicious damage - breach of the peace - contempt of court.

[2015]JRC149

Royal Court

(Samedi)

3 July 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Stuart Richomme

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 26^th February, 2015, the defendant was in a relationship with his girlfriend who at the time was 25 weeks pregnant with their child.   She had picked him up in her car in the early evening and had suspected that he had taken some drugs which he denied.  She telephoned him later in the evening and he was aggressive, shouting and swearing at her.  He made threats against her parents and her parents' home and said he would find her and "smash a brick over your head" if she did not meet with him.  She felt under pressure to meet with him and arranged to pick him up at Bellozane Road. 

She met with the defendant who got in the car. He was shouting at her and grabbing her and squeezing her face.  He pushed his forehead against her head.  He told her to drive and when she drove off he then suddenly pulled on the handbrake causing the car to skid stopping partly onto the pavement and partly on the road.  

The girlfriend called for assistance to a member of the public who was walking past.  She got out of the car to seek assistance and the defendant put his hand over her mouth.  He then got out of the car and shouted at the male and told him to not get involved using abusive language (Count 3). 

The girlfriend noted that she was in the vicinity of a friend's flat whose light was on so she called up to her friend asking for her to call the police.  The defendant grabbed her around her 'baby bump' and pulled her to the car.  He took the car keys from her and started the engine on and was revving it.  She spoke to him through the opened passenger door telling him to stop and he spat straight into her face.  The defendant then got out of the car and threw the car keys away.  He was pushing and shoving his girlfriend.  She fell to her knees and held her bump to try and protect her baby.  The defendant stood over her shouting.  He then walked away and picked up a rock.  He walked towards her with the rock in his hands and she was concerned he was going to hit her with it (Count 1).  He then used the rock to smash the windscreen of her car causing damage to the value of £537.63 (Count 2).  He then left the area.  The police and ambulance arrived and the girlfriend was taken to Accident and Emergency so her and her unborn baby could be checked over.  She suffered minor injuries consisting of tenderness to various parts of her body and bruising and abrasions. 

Despite the efforts of the police the defendant was not located but he handed himself into the police the following day.  In interview he admitted causing damage to the car but subsequently changed his mind and invited the police to "prove it".  He denied any assault upon the girlfriend. 

On two occasions before different Magistrates he was disruptive and abusive swearing at both the Magistrates and the Prosecutor.  Two charges of contempt of court were therefore brought against him.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea entered on Indictment.  Not co-operative with police.  Disrespectful and disruptive when appearing before the Magistrate's Court.  Relative youth but a very poor record.  Previously breached non-custodial sentences.  Failed to adhere to the clear warning given by the Royal Court on the last occasion.  Assessed as being at high risk of re-offending and risk of harm to others.  A risk of future domestic violence.  Credit given for Community Service hours completed. 

The Defence

Facts not disputed.  No intention to either threaten or hurt victim with rock: intention to break windscreen.  Guilty plea.  Remorse.  Had seen the victim personal statement: deeply regrets actions.  Apologised for contempt offences.  Still only age 20: benefit of youth.  Accepted relationship with girlfriend was over but wanted to be the father that he never had to his child.  Deeply regretted not being present at birth.  His actions in direct consequence of his upbringing.  Unable to cope with difficult situations which resulted in him becoming angry and violent.  Custody had been sobering experience and suggested that he was now maturing.  He did not want to return to prison.  Greater weight should be given to the rehabilitation of young offenders.  Recommended giving another chance with non-custodial sentence.  Letter of apology. 

Previous Convictions:

Convictions for 30 offences including grave and criminal assault, common assault, possession of an offensive weapon, possession of controlled drugs, affray, drunk and disorderly, resisting Police, abusive words or behaviour and motoring. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Community Service Order: 9 months' youth detention, consecutive to other Counts on Indictment.

Total: 23 months' youth detention and Community Service Order to be discharged.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

On 7^th November, 2014, the Court had given the defendant a chance by not sending him to youth detention for an offence of affray.  The Court quoted its previous warning.  The defendant had not taken notice of that warning.  He had assaulted his 25 weeks pregnant girlfriend by grabbing her face, pushing his head into her head, spitting in her face, grabbing, pushing and pulling her and putting her in fear that he might hit her with the rock.  The Court had accepted that he did not intend to use the rock on her but that she did not know that before he hit the windscreen.  A very frightening assault.  The Court had noted the contents of the victim personal statement and the distress caused.  Thereafter he had on two separate occasions sworn at the Magistrate.  Defence counsel had put all mitigation before the Court.  Guilty plea.  Age a very important factor.  The Court read the contents of the social enquiry report and noted his very difficult upbringing.  The Court had read his letter.  Defence counsel argued very strongly for a non-custodial sentence but the Court did not agree.  The Court had had regard to Article 4 of the Young Offenders Law and in particular noted that on a number of occasions he had been either unable or unwilling to comply with a non-custodial sentence.  The Court concluded that there must be a custodial sentence.  The Court concluded that the Crown's conclusions were correct.  The Court expressed the hope that he would take advantage of the various courses etc. that there available to him in prison.

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        On the 7^th November, 2014, the Court gave you a chance by not sending you to youth detention at that stage for an affray but do you remember the Court said this:-

"If you are brought back before this Court, you will almost certainly be sentenced to youth detention so this is your chance, please take it."

2.        Well, unfortunately you have not done so.  You assaulted the woman, who was 25 weeks pregnant with your child, by grabbing her face and squeezing it, pushing your forehead into her head, spitting in her face, grabbing her round her baby bump, pushing and shoving her, and then finally picking up a rock and making her fear that you might hit her with it before, in fact, using the rock to smash the window of her car.  Now we accept what your advocate has said, that you at no stage intended to use the rock to attack her.  But she was not to know that, particularly in view of your earlier threat that evening to hit her with a brick.  So all in all, it must have been a very frightening assault for her and your advocate has confirmed that you have seen the victim impact statement and the distress that it has caused to her.  Since then you have also twice committed contempt of court by swearing at the Magistrate. 

3.        Now your advocate has spoken on your behalf and put forward all the mitigation which he can; you pleaded guilty, which is to your credit; you are aged 20 which, of course, is a very important factor: we have read the background report and we do appreciate the really very difficult start you have had in life and we accept that that has caused difficulty for you.  We have also read the letter which you have sent to us and your expressed determination to try and turn your life around and, in particular, be a father to your child. 

4.        Putting all that together, your advocate has urged that we should proceed by way of non-custodial sentence.  We have considered that but we cannot agree to it.  We, of course, have borne in mind Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 but in our judgment you have failed on a number of occasions to respond to non-custodial sentences so as to show that you are unable or unwilling to do so and, of course, you are in breach of the Community Service Order passed as recently as November.  So it must be a custodial sentence. 

5.        We have then considered the length because your advocate has urged that a shorter sentence would be appropriate.  Nevertheless, we have concluded that the Crown's conclusions are correct; they have made adequate allowance for the community service you have done, and we do not think that they have failed to have regard to the totality principle. 

6.        The sentence of the Court is: Count 1: 12 months' youth detention, on Count 2: 3 months' youth detention, concurrent, Count 3: 1 month's youth detention, concurrent, Count 4: 1 month's youth detention, consecutive - we think that any contempt of court has to be consecutive so that offenders appreciate the consequences - Count 5: 1 month's youth detention, consecutive, so that is 14 months on the Indictment.  In relation to the previous offence the Crown has made allowance for the community service you have done and therefore we think 9 months' youth detention is correct and that must be consecutive, so that makes a total of 23 months' youth detention. 

7.        We warn you that you may be liable to supervision when you are released.  We hope that you will take advantage of the services available in the prison.  There are many helpful courses now which will help you prepare for when you come out.  We discharge the Community Service Order. 

Authorities

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

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

AG-v-De Carvalho and Richomme [2014] JRC 213A.

AG v Cameron [2008] JRC 182.