Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2018]JRC195

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 October 2018

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Grime and Thomas.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jonathan Robert Aubert

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

2 counts of:

Grave and criminal assault. (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  38.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Saturday 10^th February, 2018 the defendant went to the Green Rooster Public House ("the Green Rooster") where a band, The Pirates, were playing in an upstairs bar. 

 

The defendant was upstairs watching the band when he attempted to throw a glass towards the stage.  The glass hit the side of Complainant 2.  The glass did not break.  After being hit by the glass Complainant 2 described feeling "shocked".  However, he remained on the premises. Complainant 1 was also hit to the right side of his face by a second thrown glass, in the area of his right upper lip.  He did not see who had thrown the glass but when he looked down he saw broken glass on the floor and when he raised his hand to his face to where he had been hit he noticed blood on his hands.  Complainant 1 described that "the incident came out of nowhere and happened so quickly." 

 

After the assault a member of staff took Complainant 1 to the kitchen area behind the bar to clean him up.  He then went back into the main room and told the band that he was going to have to leave. 

 

The Witness is a freelance sound engineer and was working with The Pirates that evening.  During the gig, the Witness positioned himself at the back of the room opposite the band.  The Witness saw the defendant throw the two pint glasses in the direction of the stage.  The Witness witnessed one of the glasses strike Complainant 1 who was stood in the audience.  The Witness saw Complainant 1 turn around with a stunned expression on his face.  The Witness did not see where the other glass went.  

 

The defendant was restrained by a number of males and removed from the premises. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has a conviction for grave and criminal assault in 2016, for which he was sentenced to 12 months' Probation, and a conviction for assault of a Police Officer in 2000. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Exclusion Order excluding the defendant from 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th category licensed premises excluding:

i.              The Multiplex Cinema. 

ii.             Jersey Airport. 

iii.            The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour. 

and except for the purposes of work, for a period of 2 years from today's date. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	14 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  14 months' imprisonment.  

Exclusion Order made, excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding:

i.              Multiplex Cinema. 

ii.             Jersey Airport.   

iii.            The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour.    

for a period of 2 years from today's date. 

Defendant allowed to attend at licensed premises to work but may not consume alcohol.  

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

Advocate L. Sette for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains two charges of grave and criminal assault, both of them arising on the same evening and in both cases you picked up a glass in a public place and threw it towards a crowded area; in one case it hit the victim but did not break and caused bruising. 

2.        In the other case, it did break and it caused scarring which will be permanent although looking at the photographs the scarring is not as bad some the court has seen; but nonetheless it will leave the victim with a permanent scar. 

3.        The Court has said frequently that the use of a glass with violence in a public place is cause for a custodial sentence and that glassing offences are serious.  In this case we accept that it is not as serious as it would have been if you had intended to cause injury.  There is no doubt that you were simply reckless as to whether it did or did not cause injury, but it was violence which was almost certainly fuelled by drink.  You and your then partner had been drinking a couple of bottles of wine between you and you had some beers when you were there as well. 

4.        The Court's policy in cases of that kind is, as you know, to impose a custodial sentence and that is what we are going to do in this case.  In particular we take account of the fact that these two incidents had the potential for something much more serious and the glass could have struck the victims in the eye, could have removed an eye or caused some permanent injury there.  The injuries in terms of scaring could have been much worse and you were not to know that.  So, we think that it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence.

5.        We also take into account that after you had thrown the first glass, theoretically it was open to you to take control of yourself and realise that was a bad thing to have done and as it were to walk away from the problem.  But you did not, you carried on and you definitely have an issue with anger management which you need to tackle.  You may have an issue over drink which you may need to think about because your record suggests that as well.  There are courses in the prison which you can take.  You have written us a very good letter of apology which we have considered and you say that you are determined to make changes and we hope that is right, you will be able to do that in custody. 

6.        We accept that you expected to be dealt with in the Magistrate's Court earlier and we are going to give you some additional discount off the sentence we would have imposed because of that process which you would not have anticipated. 

7.        In the circumstances we think that the right course is to sentence you to 14 months' imprisonment which is the sentence we now impose on Count 1 of the Indictment, and 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on Count 2.  A total of 14 months' imprisonment, and of course the time you have served will go towards that as well.

8.        We are also going to impose an exclusion order which will be for a period of 2 years from today's date.  You are excluded from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour.  As I say, that runs for 2 years from today and there will be a carve-out from that order that you can attend on licensed premises if you are working and if you do not consume alcohol. 

9.        14 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998.

Harrison v AG [2004 JLR 111].

AG v Viveiros [2014] JRC 162A.

AG v Saville [2007] JRC 110.

AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070.