Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault

[2020]JRC140

Royal Court

(Samedi)

10 July 2020

Before     :

A. J. Olsen, Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Austin-Vautier

The Attorney General

-v-

Alexandre Paulo Ribeiro Coelho

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

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  46. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had been in a relationship with the complainant for approximately 3 months.  She found him to be a jealous and controlling person.  She told him the relationship was over: he did not take it well.  He was verbally abuse to her.

 

The following night when she was at work he entered her flat and slept on her sofa after consuming alcohol.  She returned to her flat in the morning with her 6 year old son.  She was expecting to find the defendant in her flat as he had telephoned the previous evening when drunk.

 

The complainant told the defendant to leave: he was abusive.  They struggled over an iPad.  The defendant pushed her with force so that she fell over the bed and hit her head.  This was witnessed by the son who tried to call the police.

 

The defendant went into the kitchen and picked up a kitchen knife with a 6 inch blade.  As the complainant entered the kitchen, he pointed the knife at her face approximately 1 foot away and threatened her.  The complainant was fearful for her safety and that of her son.  Her son was standing in the kitchen doorway and also witnessed this part of the incident.  He was scared.

 

It was accepted that the defendant was telling her to take the knife from him and stab him.

 

The complainant went and opened the front door.  She told her son to go to a neighbour and call the police.

 

She told the defendant to leave.  They struggled once again over the iPad and in recklessness the defendant lashed out, hitting the complainant on her nose causing it to bleed.  The defendant then ran away.

 

The Crown applied the factors in Harrison v AG to the facts of the case.  The complainant and son remained fearful for their safety

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown:  Guilty plea on a basis accepted.  No personal mitigation.  Had shown little regret or remorse.  His letter of apology to Court made no reference to the Complainant.  He had sought to blame complainant for the incident when interviewed by the police.  He had a previous conviction for a grave and criminal assault on a previous partner in her own home.  He had then breached non-custodial sentences and a Restraining Order imposed upon him.  He was assessed as posing a risk of harm to future partners.

 

The Defence:  Accepted custodial sentence was inevitable. Sought to suggest Crown's Conclusions were excessive by reference to other non-guideline cases.  No intention to stab complainant but accepted she would have been put in fear.  Despite use of knife, no serious injuries sustained.  Extremely remorseful.  References in support of him provided.  Did not wish to be deported: he was a hardworking generous man.  Requested a chance to stay in Jersey.

Previous Convictions:

7 convictions for 9 offences.  Grave and criminal assault, drunk and disorderly, breaches of Community Service Order, Probation Order and Restraining Order and 7 court appearances.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

Restraining Order sought under Article 5(2) of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 for a period of 5 years from date of sentence in the following terms:

i. The Defendant be prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect, with the Complainant;

ii. The Defendant be prohibited from approaching or following the Complainant;

iii. The Defendant be prohibited from loitering within 50 metres of any premises known to him to be the home address of the Complainant;

iv. The Defendant be prohibited from entering any part of the premises known to him to be the work address of the Complainant or loitering within 50 metres thereof;

v. Should the Defendant see or come into contact with the Complainant in any public or private place he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order; and

vi. Any breach of this order shall be an offence for which the Defendant will be liable to imprisonment for up to 2 years and to a fine

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

J. C. Gollop Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Lieutenant BAILIFF:

1.        On 20^th October, 2019, the defendant, who is 46 years old, committed a grave and criminal assault on his former partner at her home address.  During this assault the defendant wrestled with her to gain control of an iPad, threatened her with a kitchen knife and lashed out at her, causing her nose to bleed.  The grave and criminal assault was witnessed by the complainant's then six-year-old son.  It is quite clear that the little boy was terrified by what he had to witness and was screaming when he saw his mother bleeding.

2.        This was a particularly unpleasant incident, and the Court views the brandishing of the knife in such a context very seriously.  It was, as the Crown has said, a terrifying ordeal for the complainant. 

3.        We note that the defendant is not of good character.  He has a total of seven convictions for nine offences over the course of the last four years.  One of those offences was an offence against the person in 2017.  The facts of that case bear that which the Crown describes as a chilling similarity to those for which he is being sentenced today.  In that case three years ago the defendant had been in a relationship with the complainant for some months and the couple were living together in a flat.  The defendant was drunk when his partner returned home.  In the early hours of the morning she was awakened by the defendant shouting abuse at her, calling her "bitch" and "prostitute".  There then followed an assault involving the complainant being pulled around the flat by her hair, kicked and slapped.  No knife was involved on that occasion, neither was the incident witnessed by a young child.  The defendant was sentenced to a Probation Order, Community Service and a Restraining Order, but within six months following sentencing he had breached the Community Service Order by non-compliance and had breached the Restraining Order, though Advocate Boothman in his address explained the circumstances under which that happened, and we have taken that into account.

4.        This Court always takes a serious view of assaults with a knife.  In AG v Lawlor [2009] JRC 150 at paragraph 6 the Court had this to say:

"The gravity of injury when a knife is used is so often a matter of chance and there is always a risk of really serious injury if not worse.  The Court is determined to send out a message that those who resort to attacks with a knife will face severe sentences."

5.        In addition this Court has repeatedly said that a person is entitled to feel safe in his or her home.  The Court said in AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 at paragraph 5:

"First of all the message is that knife crime will be dealt with severely even though no injury is caused, and secondly, domestic violence is similarly a crime which will be treated severely.  A person's home, however big or small it is, is their refuge and if the person with whom the home is shared uses violence the victim suffers a double violation; a violation by a person that they have trusted and a violation in their own home.  People who commit these offences can expect the Court to focus on the victims and not on their hardships and on their difficulties."

6.        Further in AG v Moiro [2020] JRC 048 it was said, "There is never an excuse to brandish a knife for any purpose in a domestic context"

7.        Advocate Boothman has drawn our attention to that case and also to AG v Horn and called them authorities.  We disagree.  We think that these are cases which have some similarity with the present one in as much as they involved offences of violence.  But, the whole point of assault is it is an offence which is protean, and we feel it unhelpful to draw attention to cases that might have involved a lower sentence with a view to trying to reduce the sentence in any particular case.  We can only judge a case on all its merits and all its facts, most of which will be unique to that particular case.  And indeed, it is for that reason that the Court in Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 sought to categorise the elements of an assault so that the Court could consider it in the round, so to speak. So applying the Harrison v AG tests to this particular case the defendant deliberately picked up the knife and he continued verbally to abuse the complainant.  We accept, as per the basis of plea, that it was a reckless act, but he did point the knife at the complainant's face and this caused her to be in fear.  No blows were struck with the knife.  The defendant apparently had lost his temper with his former partner, but he deliberately went into the kitchen and picked up the knife rather than leaving the flat when he could so easily have done so.  The physical injuries sustained were mercifully not serious but they were significant.  The defendant used the complainant's kitchen knife with a 6 inch blade to threaten the complainant.  It was carried, he took hold of the knife on impulse, but he was not being physically threatened by the complainant nor was he being detained in the flat.  And, as we have said, he had the opportunity to put it down before she entered the kitchen.  Only he was involved.  The complainant had offered no provocation, she did not physically threaten the defendant, she had been injured by the defendant and she had suffered verbal abuse.  At all times the defendant was the aggressor.  Finally in the Harrison v AG factors the defendant has a criminal record, as we have said, grave and criminal assault, and he has been abusive to females with whom he enters into a relationship. 

8.        As we have said, the defendant is not of good character.  He has a total of seven convictions for nine offences over the last four years and one of those, as we have said, was an offence against the person in 2017.  We have read the excellent, if we may say so, Social Enquiry Report very carefully and we have taken into account everything set out in that.  We also give the defendant full credit for his guilty plea, although it came some days before a Newton Hearing at which the complainant thought she would be required to give evidence in open court.  Advocate Boothman has explained the circumstances and we do give full allowance for the guilty plea.  But the remorse shown by the defendant is diluted by the fact that at interview he sought to lay the blame on the complainant.  We have read a letter that the defendant has addressed to us apologising for his conduct, but as the Crown has pointed out, one strives to find in that any form of apology to the victim.  The Court is not the victim of this offending: his former partner is.  In addition we note at paragraph 31 of the Social Enquiry Report it is stated that he displayed very little victim empathy.

9.        In a powerful and compelling speech in mitigation Advocate Boothman drew our attention to a number of matters.  It is clear that the defendant has a good work ethic and we have seen some impressive references from friends.  But this was a very serious offence, indeed it is the defendant's second violent attack on a woman in her own home, and we say again, the brandishing of a substantial kitchen knife at the victim and the terrified presence of her six-year-old son are seriously aggravating features.  Advocate Boothman accepted that a period of imprisonment was inevitable, and we give credit to the defendant for instructing his counsel in that way.

10.      We agree; the seriousness of the offence and all the circumstances permits of no other disposal, and we also note the defendant's previous non-compliance with Probation and Community Service Orders and the conclusion of the Social Enquiry Report that to impose a non-custodial sentence would be a high-risk strategy.

11.      We have had regard to everything that has been said to us by counsel, but have reached the decision that the conclusions of the Crown are reasonable and therefore the sentence will be one of two years' imprisonment. 

12.      Turning now to the Restraining Order, the Royal Court has made the following Restraining Order under Article 5(2) of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008:

"i.        The Defendant shall be prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect, with the Complainant;

ii.        The Defendant shall be prohibited from approaching or following the Complainant;

iii.       The Defendant shall be prohibited from loitering within fifty metres of any premises known to him to be the home address of the Complainant;

iv.       The Defendant shall be prohibited from entering any part of the premises known to him to be the work address of the Complainant or loitering within 50 metres thereof and;

v.        Should the Defendant see or come into contact with the Complainant in any public or private place he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order."

This Order shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date hereof.  Any breach of this Order shall be an offence for which the Defendant will be liable to imprisonment for up to two years and to a fine. 

13.      The Court has been out for quite a long time because it has been considering with particular care the matter of deportation.  The Court, on balance, is going to make a recommendation for deportation.  This latest grave and criminal assault in a domestic setting has, as we have already said, a chilling similarity to his earlier offence three years ago.  The continuing presence in Jersey of a person who commits offences of violence against females with whom he is in an intimate relationship is manifestly detrimental to our community as a whole.  Advocate Boothman urged strongly upon us that the defendant is only a danger to women when he drinks and he pointed out that being in prison Mr Coelho has remained abstinent for some eight months.  But the Court is not prepared to take that risk.  We have no confidence that he will remain abstinent and remind ourselves that the index offending is very serious, something which perhaps the defendant does not altogether realise. 

14.      Turning to the second limb of the test in Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 the defendant first came to Jersey in August 2004, and to his credit he first offended in 2016; but his conduct over the last four years, particularly in respect to incidents of domestic abuse, has been reprehensible to a degree.  We have already noted that he has been subject to various orders and he has not obeyed those; he has breached or failed to comply with their terms.  The Crown has said, and the Court has often said, that living in Jersey is a privilege, and this defendant has abused that privilege.  Looking at the Human Rights aspects of the case we note that the defendant has a brother in this jurisdiction and his relationship is described as being close and supportive, but he has no dependants within the island, indeed his 20-year-old son is living in mainland Portugal; and we note further from paragraph 1 of the Social Enquiry Report that the defendant has a large and stable family there.  He is currently not in a relationship.  No innocent person will be detrimentally affected by the deportation of this man, so we have considered whether the defendant's deportation would be disproportionate having regard to his Article 8 rights pursuant to the European Convention.  We conclude that it would not be disproportionate.  Indeed his deportation would be conducive to the public good and in the interests of the wider community, so the Court is therefore recommending to the Minister for Home Affairs that the defendant be deported when he has served his sentence of imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG v Lawlor [2009] JRC 150. 

AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104. 

AG v Moiro [2020] JRC 048. 

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111. 

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

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462. 

Immigration (Jersey) Order 1993