Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - motoring offences.

[2019]JRC241

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 December 2019

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Christensen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Laurie Ian Murphy

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

First Indictment

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 1)

Second Indictment

1 count of:	Taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Driving while disqualified, contrary to Article 15 (4) (b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948.  (Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration about the prescribed limit, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 4).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First indictment 

The complainant visited a friend in Hospital.  Whilst the complainant was walking home the defendant approached him and tried to engage in conversation with him.  The complainant tried to walk away but the defendant ran up to him.  The defendant said that he had a broken shoulder and needed help.  In an unprovoked attack, the defendant then struck the complainant with a single blow to the left temple using a weapon that caused three deep puncture wounds.  The weapon was a three pronged phone charger. 

 

The defendant said nothing then walked away.  The complainant walked home and called the police.  He was then taken to hospital where his injuries were glued.  The defendant was identified on the hospital CCTV and on Aquila Road Stores CCTV, seen to be wearing a blue sling and accompanied by a female and another male. 

 

After his arrest, the defendant agreed to take part in a PROMAPS video identification procedure and was positively identified by the complainant as being his assailant.  

 

The Crown applied at a hearing to have the defendant's previous convictions for violence-related offences admitted as evidence of the defendant's bad character at trial.  The majority of the offences the Crown applied for were admitted and the defendant subsequently pleaded guilty the following day, the day before trial. 

 

Second Indictment

A few days after the first indictment officers attended an address at Old St Johns Court in respect of an unrelated incident. Whilst there, the officer spoke to the defendant who was outside an address.  The officer noticed that the defendant appeared to be heavily under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 

 

The officer approached the vehicle and saw the defendant in the driver's seat.  There were two passengers in the car.  The officer asked what the defendant was doing, and replied that he was "just moving it."  The Defendant was under the influence of drink or drugs (Count 4).

 

The defendant completed an intoxication procedure and showed a reading of 85 ugs/100 ml (one hour after initial arrest.)  At the material time the defendant did not hold a driving licence and he was not insured to drive the vehicle (Counts 2 and 3).

 

The owner of the vehicle subsequently provided a statement of complaint in support of the taking and driving away of her vehicle, for which she had not given permission (Count 1)..

 

Aggravating Features

First Indictment

Use of a weapon that was carried before the assault, serious injuries inflicted, assault was unprovoked and in a public place, under the influence of drink or drugs, complainant was a vulnerable person, no remorse/guilty plea entered day before trial, the offending put the defendant in breach of a probation order imposed by the Magistrates Court (on 21^st December, 2018), several violence-related previous convictions including 6 offences of common assault, 2 offences of grave & criminal assault, 1 offence of affray, 1 offence of possession of an offensive weapon and 3 offences of robbery. 

 

Second Indictment

Under the influence of drink or drugs, passengers carried, no remorse, attempted to avoid arrest, significant record of convictions for motoring offences including 6 offences for taking and driving away, 4 offences for driving while disqualified, 5 offences for driving without insurance, no previous convictions for offence specified in Count 4, but has 1 previous conviction for failing to provide a specimen for analysis. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas to all counts on the Second Indictment (2 months after Indictment), guilty plea to First Indictment (one day before trial). 

 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has 41 convictions for 137 offences. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Starting point 3 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

2 years' 3 months' imprisonment.

Second Indictment.

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 4.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 4.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 4.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment, and 24 months' disqualification from driving sought.

Total:  3 years' 3 months' imprisonment.

24 months disqualification from driving sought.

Restraining Order sought pursuant to Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 in the following terms for an indeterminate period:

That the Defendant be prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, Stewart Charles Dole, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Starting point 3 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

2 years' 3 months' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	2 month's imprisonment concurrent to Count 4.
Count 2.	4 months' imprisonment concurrent to Count 4.
Count 3	3 months' imprisonment concurrent to Count 4.
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment, and 36 months' disqualification from driving.

Total:  2 years' 9 months' imprisonment.

36 months' disqualification from driving ordered from date of sentence.

Restraining Order made as set out in the Crown's conclusions. 

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

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault and for a number of motoring offences arising out of your driving of a motor vehicle on 25^th of April this year. 

2.        The facts have been set out by the Crown and we do not need to repeat them in any detail.  On the 20^th April you assaulted a man in St. Helier with a weapon with which you struck him on the head.  You did not know each other, there was no provocation.  

3.        The injuries were fairly serious but they could have been more so.  The weapon caused 3 wounds to the sides of the head which bled profusely.  It appears to have been an electric charging plug held in your hand and used as a weapon.  

4.        The motoring offences are unrelated and, as we have said, the facts have been set out by the Crown in connection with them.  We note that you ran away from the police when confronted with regard to the motoring offences, and the offending we understand places you in breach of a probation order.  

5.        You did not plead at the earliest opportunity but you did plead guilty in early course to the motoring offences.  However, you only pleaded guilty to the grave and criminal offence the day before trial and that to us means that we cannot allow the full weight of mitigation for a guilty plea that would normally be allowed.  The guilty plea does not, to our minds, carry any conviction of remorse, but is rather a decision made for practical purposes but it nonetheless has value which we do take into account because it has avoided the necessity of trial and of a vulnerable individual giving evidence.  

6.        We agree with the Crown's analysis of the case based on the case of Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.  This was a nasty unprovoked attack on the streets of St. Helier fuelled by drink or drugs and the Court's policy in this matter is well understood.  We have noted the effect on the victim in the victim's personal statement.  You have a bad record which covers a broad range of offending, including offences relating to alcohol and violence. 

7.        Other than the benefit of the guilty plea in connection with the grave and criminal assault, we of course, take into account the matters raised in the Social Enquiry Report which we do not need to make reference to in these remarks. 

8.        However, in conclusion, we think with regard to the grave and criminal assault the Crown's assessment of the appropriate sentence is correct.   With regard to the motoring offences we are more inclined to follow the submissions made by your counsel and to apply lower sentences for those individual counts.  Accordingly you are sentenced as follows:-

9.        For grave and criminal assault, 2 years' and 3 months' imprisonment. 

10.      Count 1, on the Second Indictment, taking a vehicle, 2 months' imprisonment;

11.      Count 2, driving whilst disqualified 4 months' imprisonment; 

12.      Count 3, driving without insurance 3 months' imprisonment; 

13.      Count 4, driving with alcohol in your blood above the permitted limit 6 months' imprisonment, all concurrent.  This making for the motoring offences 6 months' imprisonment and that is consecutive to the grave and criminal assault making a total sentence of imprisonment of 2 years' and 9 months. 

14.      With regard to disqualification, we think that a more significant period of disqualification is appropriate and we disqualify you from driving for 36 months.  

15.      With regard to the Restraining Order, we think that this offence was unprovoked and there is no reason to suppose that if you encounter this individual again that you would not feel entirely free to vent any anger or supposed concerns relating to your thoughts about the way he may have spoken to your sister, and we think that an indeterminate order is therefore appropriate.  We make that order in the terms moved for by the Crown. 

Authorities

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. 

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948. 

Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law (2008) 

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070

AG v Le Lay [2014] JRC 041

AG v Higham [2017] JRC 199

AG v Murphy [2019] JRC 233 (bad character judgement)