Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Manslaughter

[2020]JRC144

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 July 2020

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen, Blampied and Averty

The Attorney General

-v-

Brian McMahon

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 20^th March, 2020, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Manslaughter.  (Count 1)

Age:  51. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 21^st September 2019, the victim attended the Robin Hood Public House at around 9pm and the defendant attended at around 10:30pm.  They were both described as being in good spirits.  They were both drinking alcohol, but neither appeared very drunk.

 

Towards the end of the evening the licensee of the Robin Hood heard the defendant say to the victim in a raised voice "This is the second time you said that to me."  He observed the victim walk out of the bar and into the courtyard.  The defendant followed him.

 

Witnesses observed the defendant and the victim arguing in the courtyard.  The cause of their disagreement was unknown.  Both men appeared angry and words were exchanged, but there was no physical altercation at this point.  Both men were separated and the victim left and the defendant was ushered inside by a fellow patron (the patron). 

 

Once inside, the defendant turned back towards the door but the patron grabbed him and told him to "let it go".  The defendant returned to the bar but left very shortly after.  The patron was concerned that the defendant had left to pursue the victim and he also left the pub hoping to catch up with the defendant.

 

The defendant caught up with the victim just inside the entrance to Springfield Stadium car park.  CCTV footage showed the victim turn around as the defendant approached him, which indicated that the defendant called out to him.  The footage showed the defendant approach the victim and strike him once to his face, using his left hand.  It was a single blow, causing the victim to fall backwards onto the ground.  The defendant then turned around and walked towards Springfield Road.

 

The patron saw the defendant walking along Janvrin Road towards Springfield Road.  He asked the defendant where the victim was and the defendant responded "on the floor" and continued walking.  The patron continued along Janvrin Road and located the victim lying on his back with his arms by his sides.  He was unresponsive but was still breathing.  The patron placed him in the recovery position and called 999.

 

The victim was given CPR at the scene and he was transferred to an ambulance, and then Jersey General Hospital.

 

On his way home, the patron walked past the defendant's apartment.  He saw the defendant sitting with his partner on the balcony, and they invited him in for a drink.  The patron told him that he thought the victim had died.  The defendant said "I'm sick of everybody telling me I'm stupid. I'm not an idiot" and made a reference to hurting his knuckles.

 

The defendant was arrested the next day and taken into custody.  The victim never regained consciousness and he died following multiple organ failure.

 

The post-mortem report concluded that the victim had been struck to the front of his face, causing him to fall backwards and hit the rear of his head leading to the terminal head injury.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, remorse, good character.

Previous Convictions:

No relevant previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On 22^nd September, as a result of a single blow that you delivered, Melvin Christopher Murphy fell backwards to the ground suffering catastrophic injuries to the back of his head and brain as a result of which he died.

2.        The Crown has set out the facts and we do not need to go into the full details.  In brief though, Mr Murphy was 65 years of age and you knew him as you were both regular patrons of the Robin Hood Public House.  You were both there on 21^st September and as a result of an altercation between you, you followed Mr Murphy when he left that public house catching up with him just outside the entrance of Springfield Stadium car park where you called to him.  He turned around and you struck him once in the face with your left hand.  It was only a single blow, but as we have indicated Mr Murphy fell backwards.  You left the scene and, as we have also said, he then died of the injuries he sustained as he fell.

3.        The evidence is that both you and Mr Murphy had been drinking but neither of you appeared to be particularly drunk.  We assume however, that drink played a significant part in the altercation between you, particularly in the light of the fact that a person in the pub sought to come between you and restrain you from following Mr Murphy but you did so anyway.  This is of course a tragic situation.  You delivered a single blow which in many circumstances may have resulted in minor if any injuries.  We accept of course as is inherent in the charge of manslaughter that you did not intend the deceased any serious harm and certainly not his death.  But that is a risk that everyone takes when they punch someone in the face.

4.        As the Crown has indicated the Court has in the past considered the appropriate approach to sentencing cases concerning single punch manslaughter.  In particular the Crown has reference to Holden v AG [2003] JCA 017 in which the Court said

"As a matter of general principle we cannot ignore the growing public disquiet at violent attacks upon others particularly in public places.  Where that violence results in the death of the victim the sentence must reflect the lethal result of the attack.  The death is not accidental; it is the direct result of the unlawful application of violence.  The sudden extinction of a life with all the associated trauma and grief that is suffered by the family and friends of the victim cannot be viewed lightly by the courts." 

And subsequently in the judgment the Court said in considering the appropriate range of sentence

"Clearly much will depend upon the nature of the violence and all the other circumstances of the case.  In our judgment, however, the starting point in a Jersey sense for single punch manslaughter of this kind is between 5 and 6 years' imprisonment.  For the avoidance of doubt, that is without consideration of any mitigating factors."

5.        We have been urged to follow Holden v AG not only as to principle but as to the duration of the sentence, because, so the defence submits, the facts are very similar.  We remind ourselves however that also within the judgment of Holden v AG at paragraph 16 the following words are to be found. 

"16.    We are sitting as a Court of Appeal and we remind ourselves that our task is not to substitute our own view of the appropriate sentence for this offence.  Our duty is to determine whether the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment is manifestly excessive, or wrong in principle. ..."

"17.    Some members of this Court would have inclined to the view that the Crown Advocate's conclusions of 4 years' imprisonment were not far off the mark, but we are quite clear that the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment imposed in the Court below could not in anyway be described as manifestly excessive."

6.        This appears to us to be an indication that the Court in Holden v AG was not endorsing the Inferior Number's sentence but merely indicating whether or not it could be treated as manifestly excessive which it could not.

7.        We agree with the Crown's assessment of the aggravating features in this case.  This was not a case of instinctive reaction on your part that went horribly wrong.  You did not have to follow Mr Murphy home.  You did not have to call to him to turn him around and you did not have to strike that blow.  It was not something done in the heat of the moment.  To that extent the attack on him was premeditated.  Furthermore you left the scene.  It maybe that you did not realise what the consequences of your action had been but you did not satisfy yourself that he was all right, you simply walked away. 

8.        By way of mitigation you have the benefit of your guilty plea and you have no relevant previous convictions of any sort.  We accept that your plea is of value and we give it the weight that we believe to be appropriate.  We have, of course, noted all of the letters and references in the bundle provided by your counsel and the contents of the Social Enquiry Report.  We have noted your expressions of remorse, not only within the letter that you sent but also again repeated before us today through counsel.  We accept that remorse as genuine and we realise that you will have to live with the consequences of your action for the remainder of your life. 

9.        We have, of course, also listened to the personal impact statements read out to us.  As might be expected they are poignant and reflect fully the devastation that this senseless act on your part has caused.  It is clear that this offending must be met by a sentence of imprisonment.  In our view nothing less will satisfy the justice of the case.

10.      We depart slightly from the conclusions of the Crown but not in a way which affects the outcome.  In our view because you deliberately, when you could have avoided it, followed your victim and instigated the violence after the heat of the moment had long since passed, we think the starting point should be one of 6 years' imprisonment.  However, we place full allowance for the mitigation available to you and we think that the correct sentence as mentioned by the Crown is one of 4 years' imprisonment and that is the sentence of the Court. 

Authorities

Holden v AG [2003] JCA 017. 

AG v Holden [2002] JRC170

C v AG [2015] JCA 159