Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault

[2022]JRC188

Royal Court

(Samedi)

9 September 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

James Martin Shotbolt

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

Age:  24. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendant was working as a steward at the Havana nightclub over a weekend.  He had authority to ask customers to leave the premises but the defendant did not have authority to lay hands on customers.

During the course of the night, the defendant approached the victim and his girlfriend and asked them to leave the nightclub.  The defendant escorted the couple down the stairs and an argument ensued between the parties which culminated in some pushing and shoving.

Within the entrance to the nightclub the CCTV showed the parties grappling.  The victim was then seen being held by a member of the public, showing no resistance, as the defendant lunged at the victim and punched him once with a closed fist to the left side of his face.  The victim was knocked unconscious and fell to the floor.

The offence is aggravated due to the defendant picking the victim up and dragging his limp, unconscious, body outside of the nightclub.  Due to being concussed, the victim did not remember the incident.  In addition to suffering concussion, the victim's left eye had completely closed shut and he required facial surgery for a fractured cheekbone which involved a metal plate being inserted.

The defendant admitted the offence in interview and he accepted that the victim was not hostile and had posed no threat to him.  He entered a guilty plea in the Magistrate's Court

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and no relevant previous convictions. Good references and family support.

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction for larceny.

Conclusions:

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £2,280 for loss of wages.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Compensation Order made for the benefit of victim in the sum of £3,780 (comprised of £2,280 for loss of wages and £1,500 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity) to be paid withing 21 days (3 months' imprisonment, in default).

Ms C. L. G.  Carvalho, Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

The Commissioner:

1.        Mr Shotbolt you are to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains one charge of grave and criminal assault.  The offence took place at the Havana Nightclub in the early hours of the morning.  You were not under the influence of drink but were working there as a steward; and the victim on the other hand was inebriated, he was asked to leave, and he put up some resistance.  It is quite clear from the CCTV that we have watched that there was a what we might call a proper scuffle between you and him as he was leaving the premises and we also have noted that the behaviour of his girlfriend unquestionably aggravated the position as between the two of you.

2.        In the course of scuffle, you lunged at the victim who by that stage was not resisting.  You struck him once with a closed fist to the head.  It was an impulsive action which showed some very poor decision making on your part.  The victim fell to the floor.  He was unconscious, he suffered a fractured cheekbone and there was concussion.  He later had a metal plate inserted into his eye socket.

3.        It is unquestionably the injuries which were sustained which make the striking of one blow with the fist not a common assault but a grave and criminal assault.

4.        It is clear that the victim was not unconscious for long because he regained consciousness when he was dragged outside but the Court regards it as an aggravating factor that you took that step of taking him outside.  He has made a personal statement in which he says that he is naturally anxious, but he has had greater anxiety than usual since the offence.  He has a scar under his eye which may or may not be permanent and of course the metal plate in his eye socket.

5.        Advocate Bell has addressed us at length with points which can be made as mitigation and we summarise the ones which we think we will take into account - the good references including from your family and good family support; there is also a good reference from a former employer and we think it is very much to your credit that that former employer has sent a member of his staff to Court this morning to support you and we understand that a job is available to you, if you are released from this court without a custodial sentence.

6.        You had entered into an early guilty plea - we think you entered it at the earliest reasonable opportunity and are entitled to full credit for that, and you have no relevant convictions.  We accept that you are remorseful and that you have accepted your actions were wholly disproportionate and note that you have written a personal letter to the victim.  Advocate Bell, I assume that you have the original of that letter.  It should be passed to the Crown who are requested to ensure that the police pass it to the victim.

7.        There is an aggravating factor that as a steward in a nightclub you should know better than acting as you did.  Putting all that together we consider that this case lies at the lower end of the bracket of grave and criminal assaults.  There was no malicious intention in advance, it was an impulsive blow and as regards the factor in Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 "loss of temper or ... in cold blood" , we think that the Court of Appeal in our judgment was not saying necessarily that it had to be one or the other and it could be in this case that it was an impulsive blow which did not so much reflect either a loss of temper or a delivery of a punch in cold blood.

8.        Having regard to all these factors we think it is right to say that the threshold for custody is passed, that in the circumstances we would have imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, but it is appropriate that you serve that sentence by an alternative in the community, and we are therefore going to impose a Community Service Order of 180 hours.

9.        You need to perform that within 12 months according to the law and we have noted from the Probation Report that it may well be two months or so before any community service is available as a result of COVID backlogs.  On the basis that you will be serving your community service at 5 hours a day that means you have 36 weeks to serve 180 hours and if there is none available for the next two months that effectively means that you serve your 36 weeks community service in the next 44 weeks starting in two months' time.  That is hard but it is manageable, and the Court expects you to perform it in that period.  If you find, or if the community service manager finds, that it is impossible to make arrangements for you to complete it is of course open to him to return the matter to Court for an extension, but we do not expect that and we expect you to commit to serving it within that period.

10.      I must warn you that if you do not serve it, there is a risk that you will be brought back to this court and the custodial sentence will then be imposed.

11.      We are also going to make a compensation order in favour of the victim.  We want to add before doing so that we do not agree with the Crown to the extent that this was its submission, that drunken customers fighting the staff should be considered vulnerable.  The victim was responsible for getting himself drunk.  Nobody else made him get drunk.  It does not excuse your conduct and we want to make that clear.  But we take that into account to some degree in the Compensation Order which we are going to make.

12.      We think that it is right to order you to compensate the victim for his loss of wages and we are going to add to that a sum of money to reflect the personal injury which he has suffered.  It does not prevent him from bringing a claim at a later stage but perhaps the remarks we have made may be relevant in that connection as well.  So, we are going to order you to pay compensation to him of his loss of his wages in the sum of £2,280 and a further sum of £1,500 for personal injury for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.  That would make a total of £3,780 and there will be imposed a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment in default if you do not pay it.

13.      I asked your counsel to ascertain how quickly you could pay a sum, we are minded to allow you 21 days to make that payment, can you just confirm that you are able to make that payment in 21 days?  Then you have 21 days to pay and as I say if you do not pay within that period there will be 3 months imprisonment in default.

14.      It is said by many that this is an incident from which you can learn, and the Court very much hopes that you will.  It was conduct which absolutely requires punishment and you are going to find that performing that Community Service in the time you have is quite a high penalty.

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994

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

AG v O'Brien 1995/226. 

AG v Rowe [2008] JRC 218. 

AG v Bisson [2015] JRC 073. 

AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070.