Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - having in public an offensive weapon.

[2015]JRC232

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 November 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

S

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 29^th June, 2015, S received a telephone call informing him that the victim was in Parade Gardens.  S believes that the victim, who was prosecuted for an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with S's step-daughter, in fact raped the girl.  S went to find the victim, taking a baseball bat with him.  He located the victim in a town park and hit him twice to the upper body whilst shouting threats.  The victim ran towards the hospital, and S chased him, hit him once more, and again threatened him. 

The victim ran away once more, and S followed in a vehicle for a short distance.  The victim called the police and took refuge in a takeaway.  He suffered bruising to the upper body. 

S was arrested and interviewed.  He admitted assaulting the victim, but said that he did not believe he had been wrong to do so. 

S was assessed as being at moderate risk of reoffending, and as posing a high risk of harm to the victim.  He told the probation officer that he could not guarantee that he would not assault the victim again. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown: Guilty plea and cooperation with the police. 

The Defence: S had made progress in recent years.  Urged a non-custodial sentence to give S an opportunity to address his issues. 

Previous Convictions:

204 previous convictions, including six assaults of grave and criminal assaults. 

Conclusions:

Total: 2 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Whilst the Court felt that a further discount could be made, they concluded that this was not the sort of case where a custodial sentence could be avoided. 

Total: 18 months' imprisonment. 

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        I would remind the Press that in reporting this matter no information is given to reveal the identity of the stepdaughter.  That warning has been given and I know it will be taken into account. 

2.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault and one count of having an offensive weapon, both counts arising out of the same incident.  This was a vigilante assault carried out upon the victim by way of retribution for what the defendant described as the rape of his step-daughter; the victim had pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with her for which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  He was released from prison on 23^rd June, 2015, three days before this assault took place. The assault was carried out in public with the use of a baseball bat, with which the victim was chased through the streets and attacked.  The defendant was observed by an off-duty police officer carrying the baseball bat with purpose, and it is clear that he intended to cause the victim harm.  As it happens the injuries were limited to bruising. 

3.        It is clear from the social enquiry report that the defendant's emotions remain intense and he cannot guarantee that he will avoid any reprisal on the victim in the future.  Applying the Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 criteria the Crown say there was a high degree of deliberation and the offence was committed in cold blood.  The victim had been sought out and so did not provide any provocation, in the usual sense, to which the defendant was reacting.  The defendant has a bad record, as he acknowledges in his letter to us, mainly as a young offender, including six for assaults, three of which were for grave and criminal assaults, but there has been a gap in his offending over the last three years.  He is assessed at a moderate risk of generalised reconviction; he poses a high risk of harm to the victim and there is no guarantee that he will not seek him out again, according to the social enquiry report.  He has in the past breached numerous community-based orders and any community-based order now would be regarded by the Probation Department as high risk.  They are unconvinced as to how successful a community intervention would be in addressing areas such as victim empathy, remorse and pro-criminal attitudes, given the strength of his presentation at interviews with the Probation Department. 

4.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and he was both candid and cooperative with the police at interview.  He says that he had suffered provocation, both generally as a result of the circumstances which we have described, but also specifically in that he learnt from his stepdaughter that the victim had approached her in St Helier and laughed in her face, and he also stated that the victim had a Facebook page on which he showed that he was proud of his offence and that there were benefits to being a sex offender. 

5.        To the defendant's credit he has made progress in reducing his consumption of alcohol and his reliance on illicit drugs, which he says are no longer used by him.  Furthermore in mitigation Advocate Bell submitted that the injuries were not of the most serious kind, being limited to bruising.  We have seen the letters written by the defendant and by his partner that show the effect of a prison sentence would have both upon the family and indeed the family business.  We have also received a number of good references which we have considered and we have considered every other matter put forward by Advocate Bell in his submissions to us. 

6.        The incident involving the stepdaughter has clearly caused the family considerable upset over recent months and is something we accept that they are struggling to come to terms with.  We can understand the level of animosity that such an incident would create and it would be surprising for the defendant to display anything other than contempt for the victim.  However, the Courts have made it clear consistently that they cannot tolerate vigilante violence.  Retribution and revenge resulting in violence have no part in the life of a civilised society, no matter what the provocation may be or be seen to be so.  Sympathetic as we are for the defendant's family, such acts of violence simply cannot be condoned. 

7.        Whilst the defendant's actions were terrifying and intended to be terrifying, both in a manner in which he carried it out in public chasing the victim from place to place, and by what he said, the actual injuries inflicted were not serious, we accept, and therefore we do feel we can reduce the conclusions of the Crown somewhat. 

8.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and on Count 2 to 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent, which makes a total of 18 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Evans and Phillips v AG [1997] JLR 94.

AG v Cabot [2000] JLR N-60.

AG-v-Cabot [2000] JRC 055B.

AG v Marett and Kilgour [2008] JLR N-2.

AG v Marett and Kilgour [2008] JRC 004.

AG v Hinds [2011] JRC 163.

AG v S [2011] JRC 182.

AG v Jarman [2014] JRC 061.