Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2019]JRC179

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 September 2019

The Attorney General

-v-

Charlie Hackett Robinson

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

Age:  18

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

The defendant and his similarly aged male victim had known each other during early adolescence but there had been no interaction between them for three or four years prior to this incident.  Due to the injuries suffered by the victim he could not remember the incident and the defendant gave 'no comment' interviews, the Crown therefore relied upon police CCTV footage, together with the evidence of three reliable witnesses.  The footage showed the defendant, in the company of two friends, speaking with his victim in Liberation Square shortly after 1:00am on Easter Monday 2019; the victim was stood, arms by his side, when the defendant pushed him backwards, the victim retaliated by throwing a punch at the defendant who then proceeded to chase the victim as he backed away from him, in circles, each trying to exchange blows.  A concerned independent female attempted to pull the defendant away by grabbing his 'hoodie' but was verbally abused before the defendant picked up the victim (now on all fours) by his waist, held him upside down momentarily before throwing him head-first to the ground.  The female witness described the sound of the victim's head impacting the ground as "exactly like the sound of slamming a five kilo gym ball to the floor . . . it was so horrible."  Security staff from a nearby nightclub ran to the scene, one describing how "It looked horrific, I have never seen anything like that. I thought his neck broke and he will never stand up from the place he landed."  Another described it as "the worst assault I have seen in my five years of being a doorman."  The victim came to after about a minute but was dazed and confused, he was tended to by one of the doormen until an ambulance arrived.  When officers arrived the defendant protested he had acted in self-defence, the victim having thrown the first punch; while being detained he phoned his mother, pleading "get down here, I need you here, I need your help."  The defendant was described as 'moderately intoxicated' on arrest.  No expressions of remorse during the investigation.  Victim was flown to Southampton for admission to the Wessex Neurological Unit where he underwent a craniotomy to remove a blood clot on his brain; post-surgery x-ray showed a fracture of the skull, unclear if it was a result of the assault or surgical separation.  The victim's neck was broken at the C6 vertebra of the cervical spine, he also suffered a broken toe but it was unclear how that had been caused.  Treatment required the victim to wear a hard collar neck brace for eight weeks, then a softer less restrictive brace for a further eight weeks; at sentencing he remained signed off from work, was suffering short term memory loss with anger and frustration at the significant effect his injuries were having on all areas of his life.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea prior to committal, confirmed on indictment, for which he deserved full credit.  No previous convictions and benefit of youth.  Remorse expressed through Probation Report. Supportive family in Court.  Temporary employment would become permanent if allowed his continued freedom

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

The Crown viewing the assault as horrific in its brutality, committed in cold blood when the defendant was moderately intoxicated assessed it as so serious that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court, having viewed the CCTV footage, noted that the defendant had started the altercation, that following the intervention of a female witness he turned back, reached down, picked up his victim and drove him in to the ground.  The Court viewed the action as deliberate but not in cold blood, although no significant provocation, and so serious that a custodial sentence was inevitable.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate F. L. Pinel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault on the victim on the 22^nd April of this year.  You and your victim were both 18 years of age at the time.  You knew your victim although had not interacted with him for some years.

2.        The victim has little recollection of what happened that evening and the Crown has set out in its statement of facts what eye witnesses say but we have had, of course, the benefit of seeing the CCTV footage and the ability therefore to form our own view of what happened.

3.        We think it shows this:  You started this altercation, you pushed your victim.  He then struck you one blow and backed off.  You pursued him and there was an exchange of blows characterised by you advancing on him and him retreating.  

4.        A witness sought to pull you away from him and there was a pause in which you apparently spoke to her but then you turned back to the altercation.  The victim was on his knees with his arms around your legs.  You reached down, picked him up by the waist and drove his body head first into the ground beneath you. 

5.        A number of people witnessed this and it was described as horrible, horrific, disgusting and we fully understand those descriptions.  An experienced doorman described it as the worst assault he had ever seen and it appeared, as we saw it at its conclusion, to be sickening.  You then immediately telephoned your mother and did not come off the telephone when the police sought to arrest you.  

6.        The injuries suffered by your victim were unsurprisingly severe and indeed you are fortunate that they were not much more severe than they were.  As it was he was hospitalised, transferred to the United Kingdom had to undergo a craniotomy to remove a blood clot from his brain and a vertebrae was fractured.  We do not know what the full effects will be but we have read his personal statement and we have seen the most recent communication which suggests that there will at least be medium term consequences for him as a result of this assault.  

7.        We agree with the Crown's assessment of the assault in general against the criteria set out in the case of Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.  It was drink fuelled.  It appears to us that it was done deliberately.  However, we do not think it was done in cold blood.  We think that blood was up but we do not accept that there was, in the sequence that we have seen, any significant provocation. 

8.        You have the benefit of a guilty plea and we note your expressions of remorse which we accept as being genuine if limited.  Your references speak well of you.  You also, of course have the benefit of your youth and we therefore consider the provisions of the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 2014 which under Article 4 indicates that we should only impose a sentence of Youth Detention if amongst other things the offence or the totality of the offending is otherwise so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  That is the basis on which the Crown has moved for a custodial sentence. 

9.        In our view, what we have seen in the CCTV leaves us inevitably to conclude that this was too serious to deal with by a non-custodial disposal.  We do not demur from the conclusions of the Crown but we believe we should make a slight adjustment better to reflect your youth. 

10.      You are sentenced to 2½ years Youth Detention. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111. 

Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 2014.

AG v Bisson [2015] JRC 073. 

AG v O'Brien [1995] JRC 226.