Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Affray

[2016]JRC046

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 February 2016

The Attorney General

-v-

Paulo Jorge Da Silva

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

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had been drinking and playing a coin game with two friends outside a convenience store on a housing estate.  An argument ensued and the defendant went home and collected a small silver kitchen knife with an 8 cm blade.  On his return the argument resumed and the defendant pulled out the knife from his trouser pocket. 

After a scuffle the knife fell to the ground.  The defendant picked it up and thrust the pointed end towards the victim's chest.  The victim ran off with the defendant in pursuit still holding the knife shouting threats to kill him.  He shouted at a bystander before breaking off the pursuit and walking home. 

There were several witnesses in the area including an infant.  One witness was so terrified she records shaking like a leaf. 

The incident took place at midday. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and a good employment record as well as providing financial support to his son. 

Previous Convictions:

Two counts of grave and criminal assault in a single incident in 2011 whereby the defendant received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the knife sought.

No recommendation for deportation sought,

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court noted that it must have been shocking and frightening for those who witnessed the events.  The defendant had avoided deportation by the narrowest of margins. 

Conclusions granted. 

Advocate M. H. Temple, Solicitor General.

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced for a single count of making an affray.  It is clear that alcohol has played a significant part and, as is often noted in this Court, that is an aggravating feature and not a mitigating one.  But what makes this crime so serious is the fact that you returned home after an argument had started, armed yourself with a knife, returned armed, and then brandished it and threatened people with it.  At that point the consequences could have been very severe.  You were a drunken person armed with a knife.  It must have been a shocking and frightening experience for those who witnessed it. 

2.        We have given due regard to the mitigation available to you, to your plea of guilty, and your good work record but we are not persuaded that you are as remorseful as might be expected and your record is not a good one.  The previous offence of grave and criminal assault was a serious one. 

3.        We have considered carefully the sentence that we should impose but we believe that the conclusions of the Crown are correct and you are accordingly sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. 

4.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the weapon. 

5.        We turn now to the question of deportation.  This is the second time that you have been convicted; you have previously been convicted for a grave and criminal assault and this is the second time you have been convicted for an offence of serious potential violence.  We are satisfied that the first limb of the Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 test has been passed and we have thought most anxiously about whether or not we should recommend your deportation from the Island at the conclusion of your sentence.  It is by the narrowest of margins that we conclude that we should not, on this occasion, recommend your deportation.  Please understand that should anything like this happen again, the Court will almost inevitably consider that you should be subject to a recommendation for deportation.  We are giving you one last chance. 

Authorities

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

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

AG v Burrell and others [2003] JLR N 53.

AG-v-Burrell and others [2003] JRC 209.

AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132.

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