Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Ramos [2020] JRC 074 (30 April 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2020/2020_074.html
Cite as: [2020] JRC 74, [2020] JRC 074
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen, Austin-Vautier and Averty. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Maximiano Gabriel Ramos
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 20th March, 2020, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Grave and criminal assault (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 3). |
Age: 23.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Grave and criminal assault
On 11th October, 2019, the defendant was identified in Police CCTV as having assaulted another man on 28th September, 2019, between 2:56 and 3:09am. The defendant and the victim of the assault were involved in an altercation outside the Co-op on Charing Cross. The victim approached the defendant holding a plastic pole. The defendant disarmed the victim and after the victim fell to the floor the defendant punched him and kicked and stamped on him approximately 9 times.
Illegal entry and larceny and possession of cannabis
On 1st October, 2019, the defendant illegally entered the property of his sister, her partner and their 3 week old baby. The defendant contacted his sister prior to the illegal entry and found out that there was no one at home. He entered the property through an open window and stole a number of items including jewellery. He then sold some of the jewellery to M R Emmanuel and used the money he received to pay his rent and purchase drugs. When his sister returned to the property and discovered the theft, she suspected the defendant and her partner contacted the police. The defendant was arrested at the Shelter, where he was living, and some of the jewellery was recovered. Upon arrest the defendant was found to be in possession of 0.8 grams of cannabis resin. Further investigation led to more jewellery being recovered from M R Emmanuel, however some items were never recovered.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea and residual youth.
Previous Convictions:
6 previous convictions for 9 offences, including offences of possession of cannabis. Larceny and causing a breach of the peace.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
2 years' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1. |
|
Count 3: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 and Count 2. |
Total: 4 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Recommendation for deportation sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
R. C. P. Pedley Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. Maximiano Gabriel Ramos, you are 23 years old and fall to be sentenced today on Indictment in relation to three offences. The principal counts are Counts 1 and 2 which are offences which are quite separate in nature, but occurred within a few days of each other, in the autumn of last year.
2. The first offence was an offence of grave and criminal assault committed on Saturday, 28th September, 2019, on the streets of St. Helier at approximately 3.00am when you had been to a nightclub with others. Close-circuit television footage (which we have seen) shows your victim gesturing in your direction holding a temporary traffic pole and striking a bench and lamppost with that pole. We do not know what led up to this occurring as you say you were too drunk to recall it and your victim did not make a statement to the police. But the footage shows you walking down the street, approaching your victim and, as you did so, removing your jacket and putting it on a bench. The victim walked a shorter distance towards you carrying the pole, crouching and gesturing as you approached him. There was then a scuffle with the victim over the pole, the victim trying to push you away with it. Then you took the pole from the victim and struck him with it. The victim fell to the ground and the footage shows you punching the victim three times, and then kicking and stamping on him nine times whilst he was on the ground. You then calmly walked away. It is a matter of good fortune only that the victim was not seriously injured.
3. The Probation Officer describes this as being "a very serious assault which left the victim unconscious". Whether or not he was unconscious, he was certainly left motionless as we have seen on the footage. As to your attitude to what you did, the Probation Officer said that he is not convinced that you comprehend the gravity of what you did and, instead, attempt to justify your actions by reference to your chaotic lifestyle at the time. The Probation Officer says that you "show minimal victim empathy" and describes this as an offence of sustained violence aggravated further by your alcohol and drug use that evening. We agree with that assessment.
4. At this time you were not working and your life was dominated by drugs: cannabis, heroin and street subutex. This lifestyle led to the offence at Count 2, which we regard as particularly mean.
5. On 1st October last year your own sister, left her home, a home that she shares with her partner, and her three year old baby. That home was in St. Ouen and she was going to St. Helier. While she was travelling to town she received a telephone call from you. We reject the assertion that that phone call had any genuine purpose. We regard the purpose of that phone call was to see if her house was empty so that you could break into it. That is what you did, knowing that it was likely that a window would be open. When your sister came home from town she saw that jewellery belonging to her partner, and to her three-week old baby and property of hers, were missing.
6. It is hardly surprising, is it, that when your sister's partner came home from work, he found your sister crying. By that time you had already sold some of the jewellery to a jeweller in town in order to obtain cash for drugs and rent, and some, but not all, of that jewellery has been recovered.
7. Count 3 relates to a small amount of cannabis found by the police when you were arrested later that day.
8. You were interviewed by the police. As to the assault, you agreed that the person shown on the footage was you, but you said that you were so drunk that you could not recall what had happened. Of course, as I am sure you have been advised, that is no mitigation to you at all.
9. As to the illegal entry and larceny, you admitted the offence. You said that you were looking for cash at your sister's house, could not find any and took the jewellery instead. You sold some of it for just over £200 which you used to pay rent and buy drugs, as we have said.
10. The Probation Officer assesses you at being at high risk of reconviction. You have previous convictions but none before this Court. You have also committed offences in Maderia, according to the Probation Officer. These are not recorded in the record that we have seen. The Probation Officer says that your offending is escalating and has become more serious owing to your drug addiction which you have struggled to be motivated to address, although we are encouraged to hear that you have made some progress in custody, and also encouraged to hear from your advocate that you have undergone a six-week course in custody in relation to studying the effects of drugs and alcohol.
11. The Probation Officer says that you gave no thought to the victims of your current offences.
12. We give you credit for your guilty plea and the mitigation advanced on your behalf by your advocate. We reject the argument that it is relevant that the victim was not charged himself with a criminal offence. We have heard that he was interviewed by the police in relation to a possible offence of possession of an offensive weapon, but the rule that disparity can be taken into account as between co-defendants is of limited application and has no application to the facts of your case. We have also had regard to the submissions made on your behalf in relation to provocation offered by the victim. Plainly, there was some provocation but it is really no excuse at all for what you did, and what we have seen on the footage in court today.
13. In January you were served with a Deportation Notice. You are not a British citizen; you are over seventeen years of age, and you have committed an offence punishable by imprisonment. We have considered the question of deportation with care, and have had regard to the two-stage tests in Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462.
14. The first question is: is your continued presence in the island detrimental to the community of Jersey? The answer is plainly yes. You committed two serious offences within a short period of time; those are the offences on this indictment. At the time you were not working and you used the money, in part, to fund the acquisition of controlled drugs. Furthermore, you moved to Jersey first when you were seventeen. By that time you were already addicted to heroin. That was in 2014. You returned to Maderia ten months later and you came back to Jersey in 2017, about two years before committing these offences. We can see from your antecedents that you appeared in the Magistrate's Court in relation to offences committed in 2017, in July 2018. You committed a further offence in January 2019, dealt with by the Magistrate in February 2019, and you committed further offences in May 2019, dealt with by the Magistrate in August 2019.
15. Secondly, what will the effect of your deportation be on the human rights of innocent persons connected to you and you yourself? We have dealt with your antecedents. You have limited ties to the Island, much of your family is in Maderia. As regards your family in Jersey, you have severed ties with them in light of the commission of these offences, according to the Probation Officer. We have been told today by your counsel, which we accept, that in fact your family in Jersey have re-established contact with you and support you. Indeed, they have all said kind things about you in the correspondence that we have read. But you are a single man with no dependents, and your parents and four of your siblings live in Maderia.
16. In the circumstances the Court has no hesitation in recommending your deportation.
17. As to sentence, the Court makes no orders for compensation or costs.
18. We make the order sought in relation to the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized at Count 3.
19. In relation to the offences on indictment, we grant the conclusions of the Crown. On Count 1 you will be sentenced to two years' imprisonment. On Count 2 you will be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, consecutive, and on Count 3 one month imprisonment concurrent, making a total of four years' imprisonment.
Authorities
AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR N 14A
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing - extract