Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply and offering to supply - Class B - common assault.

[2016]JRC143A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 August 2016

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert Leslie Smart

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

Age:  59.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On a date between 27^th and 29^th December, 2015, the defendant's daughter ("the victim") was at the defendant's address with some of her friends.  The victim and her friends were drinking and the victim was making an annoying humming noise.  The defendant asked the victim several times to stop making the noise.  The defendant was trying to sleep in the living room and the victim was making the same noise.  The defendant went into the bedroom, where the victim was, with the intention of throwing her out of the flat.  The defendant approached the victim, grabbed her hair and pulled it.  The victim apologised for making the noise and the defendant let go.  The defendant had hold of the victim's hair for a matter of seconds and no injury was caused (Count 7). 

On 31^st January, 2015, the victim was again at the defendant's flat with her friends.  The victim and her friends were drinking, as was the defendant.  The following morning an argument broke out between the victim and her friends.  The defendant, who was still intoxicated, became involved in the argument.  The defendant attempted to enter the bedroom but the victim was sitting on the floor behind the door.  The defendant pushed the door against the victim three or four times, making contact with her leg each time.  One of the victim's friends pushed the bed in front of the bedroom door to prevent the defendant coming in.   The victim suffered no injury (Count 8). 

As a part of the investigation into the assaults the Police examined the defendant's mobile phone.  Messages were recovered which implicated the defendant in the supply of controlled substances.    The defendant was involved in social supply to 15 year old friends of his daughter (Counts 1, 2, 3 and 6) and an adult neighbour of his (Counts 4 and 5). 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, cooperative with the Police, remorse.  The defendant also named his supplier in interview and open Court, the Police confirmed that this was genuine information. 

Previous Convictions:

Ten convictions for 24 offences, including possession and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug (most recently 2013), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (1984) and common assault (2001). 

Conclusions:

Total: 9 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 140 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 8 months' imprisonment, plus a 12 month Probation Order.

No order made for forfeiture and destruction of drugs. 

Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Crown.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Mr Smart, it is clear that having your 15 year old daughter coming to live with you in your one-bedroomed flat was not an easy situation.  We have heard the summary of facts and it is clear that, under some provocation, you committed two assaults on her.  The first was to grab her hair and pull it for a moment because she would not stop humming despite your requests that she should do so; she immediately apologised for not having stopped.  The second was when you tried to push the door open to the bedroom; she was sitting against the door and as a result it made contact with her leg when you pushed it three times. 

2.        More serious is the supply of a total of 6.5 grams of cannabis to two 15 year old friends of your daughter and to an adult neighbour.  The Court takes a serious view of people who contribute to youngsters developing a drug habit.  Advocate Grace has spoken in mitigation; she referred to your guilty plea, your troubled background, and the fact that you had recently found a new job and accommodation and were hopefully achieving considerable stability in your life at this stage.  You do need, as she says, to overcome your long-standing drug and alcohol habit.  Now despite that mitigation, had it not been for what we are about to mention, the Court would have been left with no alternative, we feel, but to impose a custodial sentence of the length submitted by the Crown.  But you, at interview, named the person who had supplied you with the cannabis.  The police have confirmed that they are satisfied that this was genuine information.  Furthermore, your advocate has confirmed that you are content to have this assistance acknowledged in open court.  Now the Court has often said that where people facing drug charges give assistance by naming their supplier or providing other helpful information to the police, and they are willing to have that assistance acknowledged in open court, the Court will give a substantial discount from the sentence which would otherwise have been passed.  This is, of course, to encourage people to give information about drug traffickers as part of the fight against drug trafficking. 

3.        It follows that we are content to reduce the sentence and, because of the assistance you have given and have acknowledged, we think that we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence; in other words it is the assistance that you have given which has tipped this from a custodial sentence to a non-custodial sentence. 

4.        Our view is that the total sentence, had it been a prison sentence, would be 8 months, being 7 months for the drug offences and 1 month, consecutive, for the assaults.  We think therefore we should impose community service which is the equivalent of that.  Unfortunately, the table for community service and prison is not proportionate, it does not go up exactly as the prison sentence does, so we have had to adjust the figures for community service slightly. 

5.        The consequence is as follows.  On Counts 1, 2 and 3 and 6 there are concurrent sentences of community service of 130 hours.  That is, as we say, the equivalent to 7 months' imprisonment.  On Counts 4 and 5 there will be community service of 100 hours, concurrent, which would normally be the equivalent of 4 months' imprisonment.  In relation to the assaults, they must be consecutive but for 1 month it would normally be 50 hours community service which would make the total of community service too high; so we are going to impose community service of 10 hours, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other sentences, that makes a total of 140 hours community service.  We would have passed a sentence of 1 month in prison on Counts 7 and 8.  We also impose a Probation Order for 12 months', concurrent on all of the counts. 

6.        Now Mr Smart, we hope very much we shall not see you before us again.  That depends upon your doing everything that the probation officer asks of you, you must follow his or her directions; similarly you must carry out the community service enthusiastically and promptly and on time and turn up when you are told to turn up.  If you do not turn up or work hard or if you do not do what the probation officer says, or of course, if you commit further offences, then you will be brought back here and resentenced and it is no doubt likely that at that stage you may well go to prison. 

Authorities

Magistrate's Court Guidelines - Assault.

AG-v-Magrath and Magrath [2009] JRC 203.