Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2024]JRC018

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 January 2024

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Roberts

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

Age:  38.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

On the afternoon of 23 September 2023, the Victim was in the Pembroke Pub drinking with friends. He exchanged words with two men, one of whom was the Defendant's employer.

The Victim later moved inside to the main bar area. At approximately 9.40pm he was standing talking to friend when the Defendant walked through the pub towards him. The Victim was pulled backwards away from the Defendant by a bystander. The Defendant was pushed away by others but he approached the Victim again and headbutted him to the face. The Defendant then hit the Victim in the face with a pint glass, causing the glass to smash.

The Victim was taken to Accident and Emergency at the Hospital. He had sustained a 1.5cm laceration to his upper lip which was 2mm deep and at the time he was treated by doctors was oozing blood. He also sustained scattered small pin sized wounds over his right forehead and a haematoma over the right eye with slight swelling. The injury to his lip was sutured, other wounds were cleaned and the Victim was given a tetanus shot.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea entered but not at the earliest opportunity, good character.

Previous Convictions:

1 minor conviction - threated as being of good character.

Conclusions:

Order sought excluding the Defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding:

i.          The Multiplex Cinema

ii.          Jersey Airport

iii.         The Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour

For a period of 12 months from the date of release from custody if a sentence of imprisonment was imposed. In the event a non-custodial sentence was imposed, the Crown sought the order to commence from the date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Exclusion Order made in terms sought by the Crown.

Crown Advocate L. B. Hallam for HM Attorney General.

Advocate N. B. R. Mière for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Roberts you are to be sentenced today with regard to one count of grave and criminal assault committed on your victim on 23 September 2023.  We do not need to go into the full details of this matter because it is clearly visible on the CCTV evidence that we have seen in court today and have reviewed on other occasions.  Suffice it to say that it took place at the Pembroke Hotel.  It was unprovoked and during the course of it you headbutted your victim and struck him in the face with a pint glass which smashed upon impact.

2.        You have heard that the victim's injuries were quite significant and of course we have seen the photographs.  He received a significant laceration to the upper lip and a number of other wounds over the forehead, a haematoma to the right eye with swelling and the injury to his lip required suturing.  You were arrested some days later and gave a no comment interview to the police.  

3.        The Crown has drawn to our attention as is usual in cases such as this the fact is set out in the case of Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111 relating to grave and criminal assault.  We agree with the Crown's assessment under each of the headings which we do not need to repeat.

4.        This was on any analysis a drink fuelled glassing in a public house in Grouville.  The Court's policy on such matters has been stated and has indeed been referred to by the Crown and your own counsel.  Absent exceptional circumstances a glassing is of such a serious nature that it will merit a custodial sentence.  We have considered of course the mitigate available to you.  We note your previous good character and of course you have the benefit of a guilty plea.  We also note the other mitigation available to you namely, your comprehensive and extremely good references; the engagement with the facilities in the prison whilst you have been on remand; the term that you have spent on remand approximately equivalent to six months' imprisonment, your personal circumstances referred to in the background report, and your remorse which we accept is entirely genuine in the circumstances.  We note that the victim in this case has not provided a Victim Impact Statement and similarly does not think that he requires a Restraining Order to be imposed upon you, and we accept that.

5.        In our view, however, this is a serious matter, and we are asking ourselves, as we must, whether the cumulative effect of the extensive mitigation available to you enables us to deal with the matter other than by a custodial disposal. 

6.        We accept that this was a moment of madness and is out of character for you.  We also accept that you did not intend to glass an individual but that you were overcome with whatever overcame you in the moment, and you struck the individual with a glass but did not use it deliberately as a weapon. 

7.        You must understand we do not view your family circumstances as creating an exceptional circumstance for the court.  Indeed, the court has often said in the past that it is the defendants to take into account the effect on their children of committing crimes and not to expect the court to offer leniency to reflect factors that were clearly not important enough to the defendant to prevent the criminality involved. 

8.        However, we have considered the matter in the round, and we think that we can cumulatively find exceptional circumstances in this case.  In the circumstances you are sentenced to 210 hours of community service, the equivalent of 15 months' imprisonment.  We also impose the Exclusion Order sought by the Crown in the terms sought, given that we understand that there is a backlog in the ability to provide community service we direct that it should be completed within a period of 18 months. 

9.        I am sure you do not need me to explain that we have taken an exceptional view in your case because of the considerable mitigation available to you.  You certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those who have spoken for you, not least of which is the probation service itself and of course those in the prison who assisted you as well, but we rely on what we have heard.  We expect never to see you or to hear of you coming back to this Court again. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG v Goncalves [2022] JRC 097.

AG v Killen [2022] JRC 032.

AG v Da Silva [2021] JRC 168.

AG v Cameron [2016] JRC 107.

AG v Viveiros [2014] JRC 162A.

AG v Turner [2012] JRC 147.

AG v Saville [2007] JRC 110.

AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070.