Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - common assault

[2022]JRC137

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 June 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Simon Rhys Williams

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize trial on the following alternative charge:

Age:  44.

Plea: Not guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The Defendant and the complainant had been in a relationship for five years.   That had moved from the UK to Jersey four years before the offence took place.  During his time in Jersey the Defendant had worked as an honorary policeman. 

The couple had spent an afternoon with friends at the racecourse where each alleged that the other had consumed alcohol excessively.  They returned home and an argument developed as to the future of their relationship.  They were in the lounge area of the address.  The Defendant was sitting on an armchair and the complainant's cigarettes were on the arm of that chair.  She went to reach for them but he pushed her away.  When she threatened to call the police the Defendant told her "I am the fucking police", intended to suggest that nobody would believe her.  The complainant fell onto the floor and the Defendant got on top of her with his knees either side of her neck, "strangling" her with his knees as she shouted for him to get off.  He then placed his hands around her throat and applied pressure such that she was unable to breathe.  The Defendant was saying "choke, fucking choke".   The Defendant got off the complainant when she managed to bite his arm.  A scuffle ensued over a mobile phone in the course of which the Defendant grabbed the complainant, threw her to the floor in order to get a mobile phone off her.  The Defendant's nose was struck by a mobile telephone in the course of this incident, which led him to call the police and allege that he had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by the complainant.   Police officers arrived and found the complainant in an emotional state and the Defendant complaining that he had been assaulted.  The complainant was arrested.  A doctor who examined her at the police station found extensive bruising, which he described as "injuries to every part of her body", and raised concerns that she might have been subjected to an attack. 

When interviewed the complainant gave an account of the attack upon her by the Defendant.  She was released from custody and the Defendant was arrested.  In interview he denied assaulting the complainant but accepted that the majority of her injuries were sustained in the course of an incident between them where she had been the aggressor.   He was charged with grave and criminal assault but convicted by the jury of common assault in the alternative. 

Before passing sentence the trial judge heard submissions as to the basis upon which sentence should be passed following the jury's verdict.  Having heard the evidence at trial he was satisfied to the criminal standard of the version of events described above and instructed the jurats to sentence on that basis (see  [2022]JRC103).

Details of Mitigation:

Good character, positive references, good work record..

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Crown moved for a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment in respect of the offence of common assault.

Restraining Order sought pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008.

A Restraining Order sought in the following terms: "The Defendant is prohibited from contacting the victim directly or indirectly until further order".

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Restraining Order granted for 5 years from today.

S. C. Thomas Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Simon Williams you are 44 years old and have no previous convictions.  In April 2022 after a three-day trial, you were found guilty of common assault upon your former partner.  You assaulted her when you were in the home that you shared with her in August 2021 after a relationship lasting five years.

2.        After a day at the races at which both of you had some alcohol, and you at home had poured yourself a vodka you began to argue, and you pushed your partner over.  When she threatened to call the police, you said "I am the fucking police" a reference to your position as an Honorary police officer at the time.  When your partner fell to the floor you used your considerable weight, at the time you weighed much more that your partner, 23 stone, to pin her to the floor, placing your knees either side of her neck with your hands around her throat.  She struggled to breath and you shouted, "fucking choke, fucking choke".

3.        Your partner was forced to bite you so that you got off her.  As she ran towards the next room you grabbed her again and threw her to the floor, taking hold of her hands, pulling her hair and putting your knee in her back. 

4.        We have seen the photographs which demonstrate very clearly what you did to your former partner on that day and we will come to the evidence given by Dr Rudd in relation to those photographs in a moment. 

5.        When you partner's head accidentally came into contact with your nose causing it to bleed you used this as an excuse for you to telephone the police.  You lied to the police and said that you had been assaulted.  Again, mentioned the fact that you were an Honorary police officer.  You mentioned this, yet again, when the police arrived.  We accept that your reference to your position as Honorary police officer was an attempt to add credibility to the false account that you gave.  

6.        Having had regard to your account, the States police arrested your partner and took her to the police station, although she was innocent of any offence, and there she was examined by a police doctor who found, and we quote from his evidence, "injuries in every area of her body".  Those injuries were consistent with the account that she gave to the police in her later statements and gave ultimately to the jury. 

7.        In particular, they were consistent with the account that she gave in relation to you attempting to choke her when all your weight was upon her.  Dr Rudd said, in relation to the fresh bruising (as he described it) to the neck, this was a difficult place to bruise accidently because it was sheltered by the shoulder and the head.  In this case there was bruising to both sides of the neck.  This was consistent with the account that your victim had given.  He said the injuries to her arms were consistent with her being held and then thrown to the ground, as the bruising was accompanied by abrasions.  The bruising to her arms was consistent with the clench hold she described and the subsequent throw consistent with the abrasions. 

8.        We have seen the photographs showing bruising left by each of your fingers on her arms, and the injuries to your victim's buttocks and shoulders were consistent with the impact to the ground when thrown to the ground.  Dr Rudd said that the chest injuries were consistent with being pinned to the floor by your knee; and you accepted that none of these injuries where there prior to this incident.

9.        You gave a false account to the police in interview and an account in evidence that was rejected by the jury, although they did find you guilty of common assault and not the more serious charge of grave and criminal assault upon which they could have convicted you.

10.      All offences of domestic violence are serious, and our attention was drawn to the decision of Coelho v AG [2020] (2) JLR 367, a the decision of the Superior Number sitting as a Court of Appeal in which at paragraph 25 the Superior Number referred to the Sentencing Council Guidelines, particularly paragraph 7 which says:

"The domestic context of the offending behaviour makes the offending more serious because it represents a violation of the trust and security that normally exists between people in an intimate or family relationship."

11.      The Sentencing Council went on to list a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.  Paragraph 26 of the judgment lists in particular four aggravating features which are present in this case:

(i)        Abuse of trust and abuse of power.  This is a case where your former partner was assaulted by you in place where she was entitled to feel safest, her home.

(ii)       Steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident.  When the victim indicated to you that she was going to call the police, your response was shortly thereafter to call the police yourself and falsely claim that you were the victim of an assault on yourself.

(iii)      The victim was forced to leave her home with her daughter.  Her daughter at the time was eight and regarded you as a father figure in her life.  Both ended up for a short period in the refuge before being housed by a charity.  

(iv)      The impact on children.  We have read about the impact your assault has had indirectly upon that child in the Victim Impact statement written by her mother. 

12.      The pre-sentencing report shows you still refuse to accept your guilt and you show no remorse.  You blame your victim for the offence you committed.  You do not object to the Restraining Order that is sought by the Crown, and we find the test for making such an order has been met in this case and you are prohibited from contacting your victim directly or indirectly for 5 years from today. 

13.      We have taken into account the references, your previous work record, the pre-sentencing report and all that has been said on your behalf.  Nonetheless the least sentence we can impose is the sentence sought by the Crown and the sentence is one 15 months' imprisonment on the Count upon you were convicted. 

Authorities

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

Coelho v AG [2020] (2) JLR 367. 

AG v Rawlinson [2019] JRC 121. 

AG v Richomme [2013] JRC 223.