Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Henriette and Dempsey [2023] JRC 010 (20 January 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2023/2023_010.html
Cite as: [2023] JRC 010, [2023] JRC 10
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - Malicious damage - threatening conduct - illegal entry - larceny
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Commissioner, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Hughes |
The Attorney General
-v-
Carl Marcel Henriette
Shannen Kathleen Dempsey
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
Carl Marcel Henriette
|
2 counts of: |
Malicious damage (Count 1 and Count 4). |
|
1 count of: |
Threatening behaviour, contrary to Article 2(1)(b) of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 3). |
Age: 33.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Henriette and the victim had been in a brief, intimate relationship which ended in July 2022.
On 19 July 2022, Henriette and the victim were in the garden of the victim's home. Henriette was drinking alcohol and became jealous. As a result of Henriette's aggression, the victim asked him to leave to which Henriette said: "aggressive, you want to see aggressive?". He then picked up a glass tabletop from the garden table and smashed it over his head (Count 1). Henriette picked up a larger piece of glass and walked towards the victim with it. He put the glass down when he was approximately two meters away from the victim. He did not say anything and left shortly after. The table cost £200.
On 23 July 2022, a member of the public saw Henriette having an argument with the victim and two of her friends. During the argument, Henriette was shouting, swearing and making threats towards the victim's partner who offered no violence. Henriette brandished a knife, pointing the knife at the victim's partner before throwing the knife to the ground, saying: "I don't need a knife with you" in respect of the victim. Henriette and the victim began pushing and shoving each other. The group continue to push and shove each other, until the Police arrived and arrested Henriette. (Count 2).
On 17 September 2022, Henriette and Dempsey were at the property of the victim's neighbour. They observed the victim arriving home and leaving around 8.30pm. They then entered the victim's home address through the front door which was closed but not locked. Whilst inside they smashed a mirror worth £80, which was of sentimental value to the victim and squirted washing up liquid over the kitchen floor. They also stole a bank card, medication and a toiletries bag. Some of the stolen items were recovered. Henriette and Dempsey were intoxicated at the time. (Counts 3 and 4).
Details of Mitigation:
Benefit of a guilty plea to all offences at the earliest opportunity. Sole carer to young child.
Previous Convictions:
Previous convictions for 22 offences between 2010 and 2015, for malicious damage and engaging in disorderly behaviour, amongst other offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
2 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1. |
|
Count 3: |
18 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 2 |
|
Count 4: |
2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3. |
Total: 1 year and 10 months' imprisonment.
Restraining order sought for a period of 5 years.
Compensation order sought in in the sum of £240
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
12 month Probation Order. |
|
Count 2: |
12 month Probation Order. |
|
Count 3: |
210 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment) |
|
Count 4: |
12 month Probation Order. |
Total: 210 hours' Community Service Order together with a 12 month Probation Order.
Restraining order imposed for a period of 15 months.
Compensation order imposed in the sum of £240 to be paid within 2 months or 5 days' imprisonment in default.
Shannen Kathleen Dempsey
|
1 count of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Malicious damage (Count 4). |
Age: 25.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Henriette above.
Details of Mitigation:
Benefit of a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and no relevant previous convictions.
Previous Convictions:
One previous conviction for grave and criminal assault in 2020.
Conclusions:
|
Count 3: |
18 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 4: |
2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3. |
Total: 18 months' imprisonment.
Restraining order sought for a period of 5 years.
Compensation order sought in in the sum of £40.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 3: |
180 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment) |
|
Count 4: |
9 month Probation Order. |
Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order together with a 9 month Probation Order.
Restraining order imposed for a period of 15 months.
Compensation order imposed in the sum of £40 to be paid within 2 months or 1 day imprisonment in default.
Ms C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate.
Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant Henriette.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant Dempsey
JUDGMENT
THE Commissioner:
1. The Court has been considering sentence in respect of an Indictment which charges the First Defendant, Carl Henriette, with malicious damage, with threatening behaviour contrary to the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 and then charges him jointly with Second Defendant, Shannen Dempsey, of illegal entry and larceny and malicious damage.
2. The facts in relation to the offences are pretty much accepted by the Defendants although there are some other facts which the Crown have not put before us which the Defendants have.
3. The malicious damage charge occurred when the Defendant Mr Henriette was drinking alcohol at the Complainant's address. He became aggressive and picked up a two person garden table which he smashed over his own head, the glass smashing into pieces, large pieces and smaller ones. That table had cost £200.
4. On the second charge, there was a fracas in a public place which was made worse by the fact that the Defendant Mr Henriette was carrying a knife, which in normal circumstances would be a very seriously aggravating feature to what took place; but it is to his credit that he threw the knife away very early on in the incident and it played no part and he did not appear to have threatened anybody with it. The statement that he took the knife as a deterrent is one that frankly the Court finds very difficult to accept. It is absolutely not acceptable to be carrying knives, even as a deterrent because the probability is the circumstances may come about when you use them.
5. The third charge is in respect of an incident which took place some two months later when the Complainant was at home. She had had a brief relationship with the Defendant Mr Henriette and she saw them apparently outside her house, she says throwing items at her bedroom window. At any rate she left the property. It was not secured, they entered and they took between them some of her property. They also broke a mirror which was said to be of sentimental attachment to her and amongst the property taken was a Revolut card and perhaps even worse in one sense the washing liquid was squirted on the kitchen floor and that might have caused her injury as well.
6. The Defendants both pleaded guilty to the charges involving them at a very early stage and are entitled to credit for the guilty plea. They had also accepted by admissions to the police at an early stage what their conduct was.
7. Neither of them has clean records although in both cases the records are not as bad as they could be.
8. There is no doubt in our mind that the offences committed crossed the custody threshold, particularly the offence of illegal entry and the Court has been shown previous cases where the Court has imposed a custodial sentence for that offence. On this occasion we note that the offence was spontaneous and was not planned and we accept the contention from Advocate Bell and indeed from Advocate Binnie that the background to this is important. Advocate Bell said that this was put forward as an explanation and not an excuse and we would like to make it absolutely clear that it is not an excuse. It is important as background to explain what took place but we do not record it in any sense as an excuse and when I said in the course of Advocate Bell's submissions to us that had the Defendants been 14 or 15 years old I would have told them to "grow up" that is exactly the position here.
9. We have read the Victim Personal Statement, which had not been uploaded to Case Lines originally but rightly now has been, and we accept what she says about being upset and very concerned by the results of the illegal entry. The Defendants should accept that as well because it goes directly to her feelings of security that when she gets into her own home she is safe, and that has been troubled by their actions.
10. Nonetheless the paperwork suggests that some of those immediate problems are not dissociated from what she herself has done. Her social media posts are completely unacceptable and, as I say, we take it as an explanation for your conduct and not an excuse.
11. We are going to deal with the matter by a non-custodial sentence and we will impose the sentences now. On Count 1 Mr Henriette, you are sentenced to 12 months' Probation. On Count 2, you are sentenced to 12 months' Probation. On Count 3 which is the illegal entry you are sentenced to 210 hours' Community Service, the custodial equivalent of that is 15 months' imprisonment. On Count 4 you are sentenced to 12 months' Probation. The Probation Orders all run concurrently so it is a total of 12 months.
12. In relation to you Miss Dempsey, you are sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment on Count 3, and 9 months' Probation on Count 4.
13. The Court also imposes the Restraining Order in the terms set out by the Crown but that will not last for the 5 years stipulated but for a period of 15 months so that it will run concurrently as it were with the custodial sentence that would have been imposed on Mr Henriette.
14. Mr Henriette is also ordered to pay compensation to the Complainant of £240 or 5 days' imprisonment if there is a default. You have two months to pay.
15. In your case Miss Dempsey you are sentenced to £40 Compensation Order with again 2 months to pay and if you do not pay it you will have to serve 1 day of imprisonment in default.
16. We want to make it plain to you that if there is any breach of the Probation Order or any breach of the Community Service Order you will be brought back to this Court and you can be sentenced afresh for what you have done and in those circumstances the expectation is, unless there is a very good excuse, that the custodial sentence will be brought into place.
17. Because it is raised on some of the comments of the Crown we want to add a few other comments. The first is that we have not approached this case as being one of domestic abuse. We well understand the Prosecution Guidelines for bringing prosecutions for domestic abuse and as at present advised we think that those guidelines are completely understandable and appropriate. There are two things that arise from it. The first is whether this is genuinely a domestic abuse case and the second is whether domestic abuse should be seen as an aggravating factor in sentence. As to the first of those we do not see this as a domestic abuse case. There was a relationship between Mr Henriette and the Complainant, a brief one which was over by the time these offences were committed and in our judgment in the overall circumstances, it does not carry the feel of a domestic abuse case at all.
18. As to whether domestic abuse is an aggravating factor for offences of this kind or assault or whether it just is a factor that goes to the nature of the offence that is a different question and for my part I would not be immediately convinced that it should be treated as an aggravating factor. It is part of the offence, which is considered, but anyway that is a point that can be argued on another occasion should it be necessary.
19. Mr Henriette, it is absolutely obvious that substance and alcohol abuse are a problem for you. We hope the Probation Order will help you to tackle that. It also seems clear, reading between the lines that relationship problems are an issue for you and we think the Probation Service ought to give some attention to that in the course of the Probation Order. You have been very lucky. The Court rather thinks that you are at a crossroads. You are not young, you should know better, but you are at a crossroads in your life. You have a good work ethic, you have some good references and you just need to take control of yourself and addressing substance abuse is the first thing.
20. Miss Dempsey, we think you have got into these problems principally because of Mr Henriette and you have got to realise that when somebody who is close to you suggests doing something which is inappropriate and wrong you have got to be strong enough just to say no and any person who is close to you who does not put up with that does not deserve you. That is the long and short of it. You again have got good family references, but you cannot get away from the fact that illegal entry and doing the things that have been done here is wrong and you, as I say like Mr Henriette, are fortunate today.
21. Sentenced accordingly.
22. The Court granted leave pursuant to Article 25 of the Children Rules 2005 that certain confidential documents be disclosed for the purpose of considering sentence and that to be formally recorded in the Act of Court.
Authorities
Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008.
Children Rules 2005.
AG v Sumner [2021] JRC 158
AG v Goguelin [2021] JRC 154
AG v Moiro [2020] JRC 048
AG v Kauss and Furlong [2014] JRC 045
AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR Notes 14A