Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault - assault

[2021]JRC175

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 June 2021

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

Reece Clark

Kai Nicholas Donkin

Jake Leighton Laurendeau

Alexander David Le Put

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

Reece Clark

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Common assault (Count 2).

Age:  21 (19 at time of offence). 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On Friday 11^th October 2019, the Complainant group, Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z had been out in town and ended up in Mimosa.  Also in Mimosa were the Defendants.  A verbal altercation took place between Mr X and LAURENDEAU, following which, LAURENDEAU was ejected by door staff at around midnight. CLARK, DONKIN and LE PUT also left the nightclub.

 

Mr X was ejected from Mimosa Nightclub at approximately 12:30am, by door staff.  He was heavily intoxicated.  His friends Mr Y and Mr Z left the nightclub with him, and they walked together into the town centre and along New Street.  Their movements were recorded on CCTV.  The footage shows Mr X's friends assisting him to walk because he was so unsteady on his feet and incapable of walking straight.

 

CLARK saw Mr X with his friends in the area of Coffee Republic.  He informed the other Defendants using his mobile phone.  LAURENDEAU, DONKIN and LE PUT then began walking along King Street in the direction of Charing Cross.  CCTV footage shows DONKIN picking up and then pushing a wooden public bench over as he went.

 

CCTV footage shows that, at approximately 12:41am, the Defendants, led by CLARK, ran along New Street in the same direction as the Complainant group.  It is clear that they had the intention of catching up with Mr X and confronting him following the altercation in the Mimosa Nightclub.  As they caught up with Mr X and his friends, the Defendants were shouting "oi come here" or words to that effect.  As they approached, the Defendants acted aggressively and were verbally abusive towards Mr X and his friends and encouraged them to fight.

 

Mr Y attempted to intervene and calm the situation down.  He stood between Mr X and the Defendants.  It appears that LE PUT then pushed Mr Y, and Mr X pushed LE PUT back, and the situation quickly escalated.

 

LAURENDEAU, LE PUT and CLARK moved in on Mr X.  LE PUT swung a couple of punches towards Mr X, at least one of which connected with Mr X'S face.  Mr X stumbled backwards.  He punched out in self-defence and his fist connected with LE PUT's face.  However, they continued assaulting Mr X.  LAURENDEAU punched Mr X to the head and Mr X fell to the ground unconscious.

 

Whilst Mr X was being assaulted, Mr Y attempted to intervene.  He approached the group with an arm raised.  CLARK pushed his arm away.  DONKIN then assaulted Mr Y, punching him several times to the head.  Mr Y did not fight back.  He put his arms up to defend himself, grabbed hold of DONKIN's leg when he attempted to kick him, and did his best to back away.

 

After Mr X was knocked out, the Defendants ran away from the scene.  Mr Z put Mr X into the recovery position and called 999 to report the incident to the Police.  The call was received at 12:44am.

 

Police officers attended quickly and recorded initial accounts from the Complainant group.  Mr X was transported by ambulance to the Accident and Emergency Department for treatment of his injuries.  Forensic Medical Examiner Dr Rudd examined Mr X and identified bruising to Mr X's forehead, nose, right eye and right arm; tenderness to his jaw and scalp; abrasions to his neck, bruising and a split to his upper lip, and two loose front teeth.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth (19 at time of offending), no previous convictions.

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	210 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	140 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  210 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £2,095 with 1 month's imprisonment in default. 

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from the date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	140 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 8 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	90 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent

Total:  140 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 8 months' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order made in the sum of £2,095 to be paid within 6 months or 1 month's imprisonment in default.

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 9 months from the date of sentence

Kai Nicholas Donkin

1 count of:

Common assault (Count 2).

Age:  21 (19 at time of offence). 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Clark above.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea, youth (19 at the time of offending)

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction for common assault (August 2019). 

Conclusions:

Count 2:

180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment and a 12 month Probation Order.

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from the date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:

100 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment and a 12 month Probation Order.

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 9 months from the date of sentence.

Jake Leighton Laurendeau

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  22 (21 at time of offence). 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Clark above.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea, youth.

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction for possession of MDMA (July 2019). 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

210 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £2,095 with 1 month's imprisonment in default. 

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from the date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

160 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment)

Compensation Order made in the sum of £2,095 to be paid within 6 months or 1 month's imprisonment in default

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 9 months from the date of sentence.

Alexander David Le Put

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  21 (19 at time of offence). 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Clark above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth (21 at time of offending), no previous convictions.

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

210 hours' Community Service Order equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £2,095 with 1 month's imprisonment in default. 

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from the date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

160 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment)

Compensation Order made in the sum of £2,095 to be paid within 6 months or 1 month's imprisonment in default

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant form 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding The Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, and The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 9 months from the date of sentence.

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. C. Robinson for Defendant Clark

Advocate G. N. A. Pearce for Defendant Donkin.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for Defendant Laurendeau.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Defendant Le Put. 

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today as to you Clark, Laurendaeu and Le Put for committing on 12^th October, 2019 a grave and criminal assault on the Mr X, and as to Clark and Donkin committing on the same occasion a common assault on Mr Y. 

2.        We do not need to set out in full the details of the circumstances leading up to these offences because they have been fully referred to by the Crown.  There was, in brief, an exchange of words between Mr X and you Laurendeau at a night club earlier that night and later Mr X was spotted by Clark who called his friends to that location and you then pursued Mr X and Mr Y and another person clearly to catch up with them for the purposes of some form of confrontation.  You shouted and were verbally abusive and aggressive when you caught up with them.  The situation quickly escalated and Laurendeau, Le Put and Clark moved in on Mr X.  Le Put punched him, Laurendeau also punched him and he fell unconscious to the ground.  Clark did not physically attack Mr X, nor was he involved in the physical aspect of the altercation to the extent of being a cause of Mr X's injuries.  Mr Y sought to intervene, and he was punched several times by you Donkin and was pushed by you Clark.  The injuries suffered by Mr X were nasty and they were painful.  They have been referred to by Dr Rud in the medical report referred to by the Crown and we have seen not only the photographs but have read the victim personal statement provided by Mr X. 

3.        We agree with the Crown's assessment under the Harrison criteria (Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111) and especially we agree that there was no material provocation.  You ran after Mr X, clearly intent upon some form of confrontation.  You were all intoxicated, and this as the Court has said on a number of occasions is an aggravating factor and, I repeat the words of the Court in AG v Passman and Passman [2007] JRC 230

"Notwithstanding the powerful mitigation put forward and the effect that custody will inevitably have on the defendants, the policy of the Court is clear and we wish to reiterate that alcohol fuelled violence on the streets of St Helier is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  The Court has tried to make this policy clear on many occasions and it will continue to do so." 

4.        The Crown's approach to the sentencing of Count 1, the grave and criminal assault is on the basis of a joint enterprise and we agree with that approach.  You all pursued your victim through the streets and although Clark threw no punches, we cannot think of him as other than substantially involved.  He contacted his co-defendants to make them aware of the complainant's location.  He then regrouped with his co-defendants and they ran after the complainant's group with the intention of confronting them.  The CCTV footage that we have seen shows the defendants running along New Street lead by you Clark and the footage also shows that you were involved in the altercation even though you did not strike any blows.  The footage shows you advancing on Mr X, with Laurendeau and Le Put as he stumbles backwards apparently having just been struck, and you blocked Mr Y's attempt to intervene. 

5.        Notwithstanding our view that you are substantially involved we nonetheless accept that we should make some distinction to mark the fact that you have not perpetrated any violence directly upon Mr X and that will be reflected in the sentence that we impose.

6.        We of course pay due regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 which apply to this offending by reason of your ages.  I will not set out the statutory provisions, they are well known and have been referred to by the Crown and called in aid by your counsel.

7.        Clark, you have the benefit of guilty pleas although they were not necessarily early guilty pleas.  You have no previous convictions and you have the benefit of youth.  You are assessed at having a low risk of reconviction.  The references that we have seen speak well of you and we take those into account in mitigation on your behalf as we do for the other mitigation advanced by your counsel.  While, as I have said, we do make a distinction between your involvement and those of your co-accused in connection with the grave and criminal assault you clearly were an instigator and that too has been reflected in our conclusion.

8.        Donkin, you too have the benefit of guilty pleas, but you do have a relevant record with a previous conviction in 2019 for common assault.  You appear to view fighting as a legitimate outcome for a night out drinking and this must absolutely stop.  We think that you will benefit from the Probation Order that we will impose upon you in due course.

9.        Laurendeau, you have the benefit of guilty pleas, and also that of youth and we take your expressions of remorse as genuine.

10.      Le Put, you too have the benefit of a guilty plea, your youth and you have a clean record and we also accept your remorse as genuine.

11.      We note the references provided on your behalf and indeed those of your co-accused which do speak well and point to a better side of your characters.  We have of course, in all of your cases given due consideration to the Social Enquiry Reports.

12.      On any analysis this was a nasty drink filled, unjustified episode of street violence.  The outcome could have been catastrophic.  This Court has seen life changing injuries and death resulting from a fall after being rendered unconscious by reason of a single punch.  That was the risk you all took.  However, we sentence on the basis of what has transpired in this case and not what might have transpired and we think that the Crown's Conclusions, when compared to the various comparative cases that we have seen are too high and do not reflect the nature of the assaults and all of the mitigation that is available to you.  Accordingly, we sentence as follows.

13.      Clark, with regard to Count 1, the grave and criminal assault you are sentenced to 140 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 8 months' imprisonment.  On Count 2, 90 hours which is the equivalent of 3 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, making a total of 140 hours.

14.      Donkin, you were in breach of probation and you have a recent previous conviction for a similar offence.  For Count 2 you are sentenced to 100 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 4 months imprisonment and you are placed on probation for a period of 12 months and we urge the Probation Service to assist you in the very comprehensive way that they have suggested in the report to address your seemingly casual acquaintance with violence where alcohol is concerned.

15.      Laurendeau, for Count 1, the grave the criminal assault, you are sentenced to 160 hours' Community Service, the equivalent of 10 months' imprisonment. 

16.      Le Put, for Count 1, the same, 160 hours' Community Service the equivalent of 10 months' imprisonment. 

17.      Turning to the issue of compensation we do not think that the distinction between the defendants in terms of the sentence we have imposed leads us to the inevitable conclusion that a distinction is to be made in terms of the outcome for the complainant.  Accordingly, we make a separate Compensation Order in respect of Clark, Laurendeau and Le Put in the sum of £2,095 with 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment and that is to be paid within 6 months of today's date.

18.      Turning to the issue of an Exclusion Order we accept the imposition of an Exclusion Order for the maximum of 2 years would, particularly in the light of the delay and your youth, be unreasonable in all of the circumstances.  However, we entirely think that an Exclusion Order is justified, and you are to be excluded from licensed premises in the terms of the Conclusions made by the Crown for 9 months from today's date. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111. 

AG v Passman and Passman [2007] JRC 230. 

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014. 

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998

AG v Ewens and others [2015] JRC 127

Magistrate's Court Sentencing Guidelines - assault