Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - exposing a child to risk of harm - malicious damage

[2017]JRC104

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 June 2017

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Nathan James Gallie

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

Age:  22 but 21 at time of offending.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Following an argument with his girlfriend, the defendant followed her into their bedroom and put one hand on her throat causing her to scream.  He then pushed her onto her bed and held her down with both hands around her neck for about 45 seconds while telling her to be quiet.  Once the defendant released his grip the victim pushed away and remained on the bed in tears.  The defendant then grabbed a leather work belt and whipped it towards the victim while swearing at her.  The belt caught the victim's leg on one occasion.  The defendant grabbed the victim's wrist and tried to pull her back into the room as she attempted to leave.  A struggle ensued whereby the defendant ended up with the victim over his shoulder.  They spilled out onto the landing with the victim over the defendant's shoulder looking head-first over the bannister and down the stairwell.  After what the victim described as a minute the defendant put her down. 

The next day the victim asked the defendant to apologise and another argument occurred.  The victim's son began crying and the defendant picked him up causing the child to scream.  He thrust the child towards the victim telling her to "just deal with this noisy little cunt".  The victim took the child, grabbed her bags and threw a pair of sunglasses in the direction of the defendant who picked them up and snapped them in two before putting them in the bin.  The victim left and went to the police. 

The victim had non-specific redness associated with a 3cm horizontal mark on the left of her neck.  The child was found to have four separate finger-sized bruises in an area which were in an area consistent with where a child would have been picked up. 

Details of Mitigation:

Benefit of a guilty plea and no relevant previous convictions. 

Previous Convictions:

Sentenced by the Magistrate for 19 offences consisting of motoring and dishonesty offences. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Probation Order and Community Service Order: No separate penalty. 

Total: 18 months' imprisonment. 

Costs sought should there be any funds available. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Breach of Probation Order and Community Service Order: No separate penalty. 

Total: 15 months' imprisonment. 

No order for costs made. 

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

Advocate A. L. Brown for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for a grave and criminal assault upon his partner in their home in which she had a young child.  He is also to be sentenced for exposing the same child to the risk of harm the following day by grabbing the child and thrusting him towards his partner.  The grave and criminal assault took place during a heated argument when the defendant put one hand around his partner's throat pushing her backwards onto the bed and holding her down with both hands around her neck for about 45 seconds.  He then grabbed a leather belt which he whipped towards his partner several times, on one occasion recklessly catching her on the leg.  During the continuing struggle he lifted his partner onto his shoulder where she was facing looking over the bannisters and down the stairwell.  He denies doing this deliberately but accepts that his partner may have been fearful of falling over the bannisters.  He also accepts that this altercation distressed the child. 

2.        He has been assessed by Dr Ruth Emsley and she indicates that he may have a compulsive personality disorder and she also says he presents at a high risk of committing a further act of intimate partner violence.  She describes him as a particularly unreliable historian and fantasist and expresses serious concern that he appears to exist within a fantasy world giving detailed contradictory accounts about events in his life.  She judges him to be very convincing and plausible in his assertions and recommends that he be assessed for psychopathy.  It is clear from the social enquiry report that there had been previous incidents of domestic violence in this relationship which have not led to police involvement and of course for which the defendant is not being sentenced today, but the probation officer has expressed extreme concern about the defendant's minimisation of responsibility for these offences. 

3.        His partner has since discovered that she is pregnant with his child which is due in December of this year and both have indicated that they wish to resume their relationship once the defendant is released. 

4.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty.  It is his first appearance, as the Crown Advocate said, before the Royal Court and he has no relevant previous convictions.  He is still a young man, he is turning 22 shortly, and as we have just said he is expecting his first child in December.  He also has the support both of his parents and of his partner's parents and we have very good letters from them all before us, and we have taken that and everything else put forward by his Advocate in mitigation into account. 

5.        The social enquiry report rightly expresses concern about the serious nature of the domestic violence for which the defendant is to be sentenced today, aggravated by the fact that it occurred when the partner's young child was in an adjourning bedroom.  The Court's policy in relation to domestic violence is well established in that it will be treated severely.  As was said in AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104:

"A person's home, however big or small it is, is their refuge and if the person with whom the home is shared uses violence the victim suffers a double violation; a violation by a person that they have trusted and a violation in their own home.  People who commit these offences can expect the Court to focus on the victims and not on their hardships and on their difficulties"

6.        Despite the mitigation available to the defendant we think that his offending is too serious to warrant a communal outcome and a custodial sentence must be imposed for the protection of society and in particular for the protection of persons within their own homes and to deter not just this defendant but others who might be inclined to use violence against those with whom they live.  However, we take the view that the incident with the child the next day does form part of the same argument between the defendant and his partner which spilled over from one day to the next and we are therefore going to treat his sentence for that offence concurrently. 

7.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3 there will be no separate penalty and in relation to the breach there will be no separate penalty as we acknowledge that you have completed the 170 hours' community service imposed.  That makes a total of 15 months' imprisonment. 

8.        We would like to say this to you, we think it is vital for you and for your child that you get the assessments and the treatment so strongly recommended and we urge you, with the support of your family we know are present, to co-operate fully in that. 

Authorities

AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104. 

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111. 

AG v Krolikowski [2017] JRC 016. 

AG v Ramos [2016] JRC 057. 

AG v K [2015] JRC 175. 

AG v Barnes [2011] JRC 150.