Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault

[2019]JRC116

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 June 2019

The Attorney General

-v-

Stephen Christopher Murray

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

Age:  27. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

At approximately 10:58 pm on 7^th December, 2018, CCTV footage from the Office Bar, Hope Street showed the defendant dancing closely behind a group of females.  The women had formed a circle on the dance floor and were dancing amongst themselves.  The defendant was attempting to engage with them.  The women had pushed the defendant away on two occasions, and one of the women described him as "drunk and being annoying" and that the group had made it "fairly obvious that we didn't want him around". 

The defendant continued to pester the women.  At approximately 11:01 pm the victim, who is the manager and licensee of the premises, approached the group of women and the defendant.  The defendant moved away from the group as he spoke to the victim, and a verbal exchange ensued between the two men.

The victim told the defendant to "leave the ladies alone". The defendant replied: "fuck off".  The victim said "there was no need for that" and the defendant repeated his expletive, before pushing the victim.  The defendant then struck the victim in the face with his right hand and continued to push his hand into the victim's face.  He then forcefully brought his left hand, which was holding a pint glass, across and into the right side of the victim's face. 

A friend of the defendant separated the pair and security arrived shortly after and escorted the defendant away from the scene.  The victim was taken to A&E where he was treated for lacerations to his right lower lip, chin and neck, all of which required gluing

Details of Mitigation:

Use of glass was inadvertent; no intention to use it as a weapon; early guilty plea, remorse, good character, assessed as very low risk of reoffending and good a record of work

Previous Convictions:

None

Conclusions:

Exclusion order sought excluding the Defendant 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 for a period of 12 months from the day of his release from prison. 

Compensation order sought in favour of the victim in the sum of £1,636.25. 

Cost order sought in the sum of £1,000. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Exclusion order made excluding the Defendant 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 for a period of 12 months from today.  This includes any licenced premises which the Defendant is required to attend for the purposes of his employment. 

Compensation order made in favour of the victim in the sum of £1,136.25 to be paid within 2 weeks or 3 months' imprisonment in default. 

No costs order made. 

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on one count of grave and criminal assault committed on the 7^th December, 2018, at the premises known as The Office where you assaulted a licensee.  It was completely unprovoked and he was simply doing his job at the time.  You turned on him and used a glass which has caused him injuries to his face.  Those injuries included lacerations of the right lower lip, bruising on the inside lower lip; multiple small point abrasions inside in that lip; 3cm lacerations and a deep 1cm laceration on the upper right neck, the upper one having been closed with super glue and those other lower lip bruises and other abrasions.  The court has a long standing policy that for drunken offences, which this was, committed in public places at night a custodial sentence is almost invariably imposed.

2.        It is said to us in this case that we should not impose such a sentence because there are a number of features which apply to you which we can put together to justify a non-custodial sentence.  Any one of those on their own would certainly not be enough, but put together it is said that they make a difference.  You have in particular a good work record; you are assessed by the Probation Service as having a very low risk of reoffending; you had an early guilty plea; you have expressed your remorse to the victim and indeed in every respect right from the outset when challenged by what you have done; you have reacted in an appropriate way.

3.        And so we have to balance this reaction which you have had to some appalling conduct up against the policy of the court.  With a great deal of hesitation, with a great deal of hesitation, we are going to impose a non-custodial sentence, and in doing so we want to emphasise that it is the combination of a very great number of factors that leads to that conclusion. 

4.        In this particular case the victim, and we are not going to forget that victim and you should not forget him either, has suffered injury entirely as a result of what you did and you must recall that and remember that in the future.  It is down to drink, because if you had not been drinking we are quite satisfied you would not have committed this offence and that is what makes the drunkenness an aggravating factor.  So you can consider yourself as being extremely lucky indeed that the court has decided on this particular occasion that the combination of circumstances enables us to avoid the usual policy.

5.        We are going to sentence you to 240 hours' community service,  The default sentence if you do not perform it would be 18 months' imprisonment, and so you must ensure that you perform that community service.  If you breach it in any way you are liable to be brought back to court and you could be sentenced for the offence again.

6.        We are also going to impose a 12 month exclusion order from today, with the usual exclusions which are The Multiplex Cinema, the Airport, and the Harbour, and in addition any licenced premises which you are required to attend for the purposes of your employment.  So you are excluded from all 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises except the ones I have mentioned for 12 months from today, and if you were to breach that then again that is an offence and you would be liable to be brought back to court for it.

7.        We have considered the question of compensation.  We think it is right to make a compensation order.  The compensation claimed from the victim is a modest claim.  We accept that he has justified the claim for loss of expenses at £636.25.  We also accept that he has suffered trauma from the offence itself and there has been some temporary damage, it is not clear whether there will be any permanent scaring or not, and we are going to award compensation of £500 in relation to that part of the claim.  And so the total is £1,136.25 which you must pay to the victim.  If you do not pay it you will be sentenced in default to 3 months' imprisonment.  There is 2 weeks to pay and if you have not paid it within 2 weeks there will be 3 months imprisonment.

8.        The Crown seeks an order for costs.  The court is not minded to make an order for costs in this case.  There is nothing in the conduct of the defendant which justifies such an order over and above the offence which is committed and it is not the court's policy to make costs orders simply because a defendant can afford to pay it.  That in our judgment is to treat the defendant with assets, more seriously than the defendant without assets and we do not see any reason to follow that policy. 

Authorities

AG v Gardner [2002] JRC 223. 

AG v Saville [2007] JRC 110. 

AG v Cameron [2016] JRC 107.

Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law 1961. 

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) 1961. 

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1994. 

Sentencing Council Guidelines for England & Wales