Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2021]JRC274

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 November 2021

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Ramsden and Austin-Vautier

The Attorney General

-v-

Callum Rose

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:  22. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 6^th January 2020, the Defendant, a paranoid schizophrenic, attacked his father with an iron bar whilst he was asleep in his bed at the family home. 

 

The evening before the assault, his father noticed that the Defendant was "a bit agitated".  The Defendant was later seen behaving oddly outside by a neighbour.  She formed the view that he "appeared unwell". 

 

At approximately 3:00am the Defendant woke his father to say he had lost his keys and could not get inside.  His father let him in and went back to bed. 

 

After falling asleep, the Defendant's father was woken up by a "smack to the head".  He saw the Defendant holding a piece of angle iron (a metal bar) about a foot long.

 

The Defendant was "growling and making angry-sounding noises" and was swinging the bar around.  His father picked up a motorbike wheel from the bedroom floor and used it to fend off the attack, causing the Defendant to back out of the room.  He wrestled with the Defendant, who during a brief struggle struck him again with the iron bar. 

 

The Defendant left the property and his father called 999.  Police officers arrived shortly thereafter and saw that the Defendant's father had sustained significant head injuries, and his head and face were covered in blood.  He was dazed and confused and told them that "my son hit me three times over the head" and "he hit me three times with an angle iron".  He said that his son was "not very well".

 

He was treated in hospital for three deep lacerations to the top of his scalp, above his left eyebrow and the back of his head.  The wounds had breached five layers of the scalp and reached the skull, but the skull remained intact.  He had 26 external stitches and two internal stitches.  An MRI scan for his brain revealed a small subarachnoid haemorrhage which did not require any surgery.

 

The Defendant was arrested and taken to Police Headquarters.  Doctors formed the view that he did not have sufficient capacity or an understanding to take part in an interview.  He described hearing voices and spoke of visual hallucinations.  The Defendant was admitted to Orchard House for assessment and treatment and in March 2020, was transferred for specialist treatment to Brockfield House, Essex, where his Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist confirmed a diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia and noted symptoms of psychosis.  Nonetheless, the Defendant was considered to be fit to plead. 

 

On 1^st September 2021, the Defendant (having been arrested in the UK and brought back to Jersey on a warrant) was directly indicted and pleaded guilty.  The Court granted an application for a transfer to Brockfield House for the purpose of treatment, pursuant to Article 63 of the Mental Health Law 2016. The Defendant was returned to the UK on 6^th September 2021 and received further treatment.  In psychiatric reports for the purposes of sentence, it was determined that the Defendant was acutely psychotic at the time of the offence.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Good character.  Committed the offence when relatively young (had just turned 21).  The offence was committed as a direct result of acute psychiatric illness.  Once undergoing consistent treatment had expressed remorse for his actions. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

A treatment order (under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016) with special restrictions (under Article 68) with a recurring time period of 6 months for reports to be provided under Article 68(6)(a) of the 2016 Law.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

Ordered that the Defendant be detained for treatment pursuant to Article 65 of the Law to be carried out at Brockfield House, Essex, United Kingdom, an approved establishment in accordance with Article 5 of the Law, where the Defendant is already present by virtue of the Court's previous orders; Ordered that the Defendant was subject to a restriction order in accordance with Article 68 of the Law until further order of the Court and that the Defendant be examined by his responsible medical officer every 6 months and that written reports of such examinations be sent to Her Majesty's Attorney General, Jersey, containing the responsible medical officer's opinion as to whether the restriction order should continue in effect and opinion as to where any further treatment of the Defendant is to be carried out. Granted the Defendant leave of absence from Brockfield House in circumstances where the responsible medical officer believes it necessary in the interests of the patient's health or safety, the protection of other persons, or it is appropriate for the treatment of the Defendant, on the condition that in those circumstances the Defendant is accompanied by at least one member of staff from Brockfield House.

S. C. Brown Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        The Defendant, who is aged 22, stands to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault committed against his father by attacking him with an iron bar whilst his father was asleep in bed in the family home, causing serious but not permanent physical injuries.

2.        The Defendant is a paranoid schizophrenic and was acutely psychotic at the time.  His mental health had deteriorated over the previous months during which time he had ceased taking his prescribed medication and he suffered from paranoid delusions and auditory and visual hallucinations.  He had been seen that day acting strangely.  He was not found to be fit to be interviewed by the police and was admitted to Orchard House for treatment.  From there he was sent to Brockfield House in England for specialist treatment.  Having complied with his medication the Defendant's mental health improved sufficiently to be returned to Jersey to be indicted, and he pleaded guilty.  He was returned to Brockfield House for his treatment to be continued where he has remained, and he is participating in this sentencing hearing via video link.

3.        The court has heard evidence and has reports from two psychiatrists, both approved practitioners, namely Dr Nicholas Hallet and Dr Vivek Bisht, who confirmed the defendant's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  Both agree that the Defendant was acutely psychotic at the time of the offence and that he requires further treatment.  They recommend a Treatment Order under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 combined with a Restriction Order under Article 68.

4.        As made clear in the case of AG v Michel [2019] JRC 205, just because an offender has a mental health condition, neuroglial impairment or disability, does not mean that they should not be punished and in cases of serious offences the protection of the public may be paramount.

5.        An assessment of the Defendant's culpability is required with a focus on whether there is a causal connection between the condition and the offence and how much responsibility the defendant retains for the offence given his disorder.

6.        Following the guidance in the English case of R v Vowles [2015] EWCA Crim 45, the court will have regard to:

(i)        The extent to which the offender needs treatment for the mental disorder from which he is suffering. 

(ii)       The extent to which the offending was contributable to that disorder.

(iii)      The extent to which punishment is required, and

(iv)      The protection of the public including the regime for determining release and the regime after release.

7.        We agree with the Crown that the following factors are relevant in this case:

(i)        The Defendant's condition impaired his ability to exercise appropriate judgment.

(ii)       The Defendant's acute psychotic state impaired his ability to make rational choices. 

(iii)      It follows from this that the defendant's ability to understand the consequences of his actions was impaired; he was after all in the throes of a disillusion whereby he felt it necessary to physically attack his father with a weapon. 

(iv)      It is likely that but for the Defendant's condition and the absence of previous convictions he would not have acted in the way he did when committing the offence. 

(v)       Other than taking up a weapon of opportunity, bringing the weapon into the home was because the Defendant held a disillusioned belief that his father was an imposter. 

(vi)      The Defendant was medicated and compliant with his treatment until late 2019 when he declined to receive depot injections by remaining in England. 

(vii)     The Defendant understands the treatment was beneficial and moderated his behaviour albeit his compliance was intermittent over periods, recognising that his condition is relapsing and remitting. 

(viii)    The Defendant has limited insight into the connection between his psychosis and offending behaviour.

(ix)      Lastly the defendant has not sought to minimise his wrongdoing or to conceal his actions.

8.        We are satisfied from the evidence that we have heard that there is a clear causal connection between the offence and the Defendant's mental disorder.  It was the primary motivating factor in the offence and in our assessment the culpability of the Defendant is low.  We accept the advice of the psychiatrists that a Treatment Order is the right disposal in this case combined with a Restrictive Order, the latter because of the clear risk of further offending should the Defendant not maintain a careful resume of treatment.  We are satisfied that the requirements of both Articles 65 and 68 are met.

9.        We should mention in terms of general mitigation that the Defendant has no previous convictions and had just turned 21 when this offending took place.  Since his treatment at Brockfield House he has also expressed remorse.  In his statement the Defendant's father who is in court said this amongst other things:

"Whenever I talk about that day and what happened it brings it all back and I cannot help but feel that Callum could only have been in very dark place to do something like what he did.  I only feel empathy for my son and know that he needs help, which I am glad he is now getting. ...My son is a kind and considerate young man."

10.      We have also had very supportive letters from the Defendant's mother and siblings.  Both his parents, it is fair to say, feel let down by the mental health and other agencies at the relevant time and the lack of support that they received for the Defendant, and how the Defendant appears to have fallen off their radar.

11.      The orders are all supported by the Defence and we therefore make the orders as set out in the draft amending paragraph 3 to say that the Defendant be examined by a responsible medical officer every 6 months.

Authorities

Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016

AG v Michel [2019] JRC 205. 

R v Vowles [2015] EWCA Crim 45. 

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

AG v Nisbet [2021] JRC 005

Sentencing Council Guidelines, Offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments; October 2020