Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2024]JRC035

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 February 2024

The Attorney General

-v-

Nilza Raquel Da Silva Vieira

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize Trial to the following charge:

Age:  36.

Plea: Not guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The Victim attended Police Headquarters at 2am on 25 November 2022 to seek assistance in removing the Defendant from his flat.  He told police that he and the Defendant had broken up the previous month after having an argument but remained living together in his flat.  He and the Defendant had an argument earlier that evening, and that he had filmed part of the argument on his mobile phone.  He showed this video to an officer, who recorded it on his body-worn camera.

The footage shows the Defendant standing next to her young daughter folding laundry.  She is not holding a knife.  She is looking towards the camera and makes a sudden movement towards the camera.  The footage then shows the Defendant reach out with her right hand and then thrust with her right hand towards the Victim who is holding the phone.  The Defendant is holding a knife in her right hand and appears angry.  The Victim was not wearing trousers at the time of the assault and a pinprick sized wound was caused to his leg.

The Victim did not make a statement or see the Force Medical Examiner.

The Defendant was found guilty following a three-day assize trial.  The Victim gave evidence for the defence.  The Defendant did not give evidence.

Details of Mitigation:

No credit for plea.  The Defendant has no previous convictions.  The Victim supports the Defendant.  Though this does not affect the Defendant's culpability, the Victim does not consider himself to have been harmed.

Previous Convictions:

The Defendant has no previous convictions. 

Conclusions:

The Crown did not seek a recommendation for deportation.

The Crown did not seek a Restraining Order.

The Crown did not seek any order for costs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Deportation not recommended.  Do not consider that the Defendant's continued presence in the Island is detrimental in the circumstances of this case.

No order for costs.

The Court observed that this offence was aggravated by the fact that the Defendant's young child witnessed it.  The Court stated that knife crime is dealt with severely by the Court even when there is no injury.  Domestic violence is also treated severely.  A custodial sentence would ordinarily be appropriate however, mitigating factors in this case including unusual mitigating factor that the Victim did not regard himself as a victim telling police that he sought only advice and did not wish to make a complaint.  The Victim also gave evidence at trial for the defence which is highly unusual.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        Nilsa Vieira, you have been convicted by the Jury of grave and criminal assault.  You are 37 years old and were 36 when you assaulted your Victim, the man with whom you were living.

2.        On the evening on 24 November 2022 you were asleep with your 5 year old daughter in the flat that you shared with the Victim.  The Victim was out with friends.  The Victim returned to the flat around midnight and woke you and your daughter up.  The Victim started arguing with you and was filming you on his mobile phone despite your telling him to stop.  You moved into the kitchen and the arguing and filming continued.  You became angry and picked up a knife that had previously been used to cut cake.  You then thrust the knife towards the Victim, which you suggested to the police was for the purpose of knocking the phone from the Victim's hand.  However, the video evidence suggested that you were not aiming for the phone.  The knife struck the Victim's leg leaving a pin prick mark.  You then put the knife down. 

3.        The Victim left the flat and went to police headquarters, he said for the purpose of seeking advice as to how he might get you removed from the flat rather than for the purpose of making a formal complaint against you.  He showed a police officer the video of you using the knife.  Having been shown evidence of what appears to be an assault using a knife the officer quite properly proceeded to put in train the investigation that ultimately led to your conviction by the Jury.  It is clear from the Jury's verdict that they were satisfied that in thrusting at the victim with the knife you intended to cause him harm or at the very least you were reckless as to whether harm would be caused. 

4.        This was an assault in a domestic context using a knife.  The Crown Advocate has quite rightly drawn our attention to the comments of this court in AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 to the effect that first of all knife crime will be dealt with severely even when no injury is caused and secondly domestic violence is similarly a crime which will be treated severely.  The fact that a young child was a witness to the assault is an aggravating factor. 

5.        We agree with the Crown Advocate that in the light of the Court's clear sentencing policy an 18 month custodial sentence would ordinarily have been appropriate.  Having pleaded not guilty you do not get the credit that would otherwise be given for a guilty plea.  Having said that, there are a number of mitigating features in this case, one of which is unusual.  We take into account that you are a person of previous good character and are clearly hard working and valued by your employer.  We have seen a number of letters of support from people who know you who recognise the valuable contribution you make to your community.  The unusual mitigating factor in this case is that the Victim did not regard himself as a victim, telling the police officer that he sought only advice and had no wish to make a full complaint.  However, as we have noted the police officer could not ignore the fact that a crime involving the use of a knife appears to have been committed.  It is also highly unusual for a victim to give evidence at trial for the Defence as he did.  We accept that you momentarily lost your temper in the face of the Victim's behaviour, waking you and your daughter up and filming whilst he argued with you.  That does not excuse what you did but does provide a degree of context. 

6.        Whilst this offence is rightly described as an act of domestic violence we note that you have yourself in the past been the subject of domestic violence or abuse.  Nevertheless in using the knife you took the risk that serious injury could be caused, albeit that on this occasion thankfully it was not.  However the use of a knife inevitably brings with it a risk of causing serious harm.  We hope that you will reflect on the potentially serious consequences that can result from even a momentary loss of control.

7.        The Crown seeks a 240 hours' Community Service Order which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment together with a 12 month Probation Order.  We note that the Crown does not seek a recommendation for deportation.  We agree with Advocate Tremoceiro that the single act of violence committed in the circumstances of this case would not in our view make your presence detrimental to the island.

8.        We have listened carefully to all that your Advocate has said on your behalf and in the unusual circumstances of this case we are prepared to grant the Crown's conclusions. 

9.        We therefore sentence you to a 240 hour Community Service Order and you are placed on Probation for a period of 12 months.

Authorities

AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104. 

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216

AG v Lawlor [2009] JRC 150

AG v Hamon [2017] JRC 138

AG v Turner [2012] JRC 147

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462.