Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - domestic abuse

[2024]JRC054

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 February 2024

The Attorney General

-v-

James Alberto Lopes Veloso

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Over a two-week period, the Defendant subjected the Victim to abusive and controlling behaviour, leaving her terrified.  The Victim was the Defendant's ex-partner, but they remained in contact.

During their relationship, the Defendant had taken items of the Complainant's from her flat and failed to return them when requested.  He had also previously spat at her and taken her passport.  He was verbally abusive, including calling her a "fat slag".

On one occasion, the Complainant had her locks changed as she believed the Defendant had taken her key.  She did not give him a new key, but later found him in her flat.  She asked him to leave but he did not, and he stayed the night.

On another occasion, the Complainant went to close all of the windows in her flat.  She noticed they were already locked, but partially open, which she thought was strange as she recalled leaving them open.  The Complainant could not find the key for the windows, which was normally kept on the windowsill.  She also noticed that a sentimental teddy bear was no longer on her bed.  The Complainant called the Defendant to ask if he had the teddy, which he confirmed he did and he told her that he would drop it to her that night.  When the Defendant arrived at the flat and barged his way into the flat.  The Defendant told the Complainant that the teddy was at his home and so they went in his car to get the teddy back.  The Defendant went inside his home and returned to the car.  The Complainant asked where the teddy was and he looked down to his trousers.  The Complainant realised he had stuffed it down his trousers.  The Defendant would not give the teddy back and so she got out of the car and ran back to her flat.  The Defendant ran after her.  The Complainant was scared and did not look back.  They both went inside her flat and the Defendant threw the teddy at her.

The following morning, the Defendant asked the Complainant how she had managed to shut the windows.  This made the Complainant think that the Defendant had broken into the flat and locked her windows.  The Defendant's mood changed, and he told the Complainant he hated her.  He then picked up her phone and bent it,  before throwing it against the wall, damaging the phone and boarded-up fireplace.  The Defendant was arrested the same day and released from Police custody on Police bail in the early hours of the following morning.  One condition of his bail was that he was prohibited from contacting the Complainant.  The Complainant was unaware of these bail conditions.

Just over a week later, the Complainant told the Defendant that she could not see him that evening, as she had a friend coming round.  That evening, the Complainant and her friend discussed her relationship with the Defendant.  The Complainant noticed that the flat felt cold, and so tried to put an electric heater on, but it did not work.  She tried to turn the television on, however this also did not work.  The Complainant became suspicious and looked at the main fuse box.  All of the switches were working.  The Complainant looked at the back of the television and noticed that the fuse holder was slightly out of place.  She saw that the fuse was missing.  She discovered that four fuses from other items were also missing, including from the heater.  The Complainant had last used some of the items the day before.  She suspected that the Defendant had climbed into her flat through the window and had removed the fuses.  The Complainant sent a message to the Defendant to ask whether he had taken the fuses, but she did not receive a response.  The Complainant phoned the Police.  Whilst speaking with the Police, she suspected that the Defendant was in her flat.  The Defendant was discovered in the loft of the flat.  He initially refused to come down, but eventually did.  On arrest, the Defendant said: "cheers for that [Complainant's first name]" and later called her a "fucking tart".  Given the time the Complainant returned home and the time the Defendant emerged from the loft, he must have spent approximately 5 hours hidden.  He told the police in interview that he found it "funny" to sit and listen to the Complainant's conversation with her friend and with the officer.

Fingerprints matching those of the Defendant were found on a tile on the front of the windowsill inside the kitchen.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, however, this was not entered at the earliest opportunity.

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions for offences committed in a domestic context, including harassment of an ex-partner, common assault on a different ex-partner and malicious damage to her belongings.  The Defendant also had previous convictions for domestic related offences against members of his immediate family.

Conclusions:

Domestic Abuse Protection Order sought for a period of 5 years in the following terms:

a.      That the Defendant be prohibited from contacting, directly or indirectly, the Complainant

b.      That the Defendant be prohibited from going to any address he knows to be the home address of the Complainant

c.      That the Defendant be prohibited from going to any address he knows to be the work address of the Complainant

d.      Should the Defendant see or come into contact with the Complainant in any public or private place, he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of the Order

e.      That the Defendant shall complete the Jersey Domestic Abuse Programme ("JDAP") either during his sentence or within 18 months of being released from custody.

Notification requirements under the Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 sought for a period of five years.

In the event the Court did not impose a DAPO, a restraining order under the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 was sought for a period of five years in the same terms as (a) to (d) above.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Domestic Abuse Protection Order and notification requirements ordered as sought.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Corbett for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court states immediately that domestic abuse in any of its forms is unacceptable and will normally be met, without further consideration if serious enough, with a sentence of imprisonment and that will often be the appropriate disposal.  However, our obligation is to approach sentencing mindful not only of the Complainant but also of any particular features that apply to a Defendant. 

2.        We will give further reasons for the decision of the Court on this occasion in a written judgment which will be handed down in due course, but we think that in the light of the background that we have been able to read in the papers and that have underpinned the submissions of counsel, the nature of the accused's record and the timing of previous offences; the fact that past failures in non-custodial disposals were a number of years ago; and, the Pre-Sentencing Report suggests a material change of attitude, we can deal with this matter by non-custodial means.

3.        We protect the Complainant by imposing a domestic abuse protection order in the terms sought by the Crown for a period of 5 years and we impose notification requirements for the same period.

4.        You are sentenced to 2 years' Probation order with the requirement to complete 240 hours of Community Service the equivalent of 18 months imprisonment. 

5.        You will have had explained to you Mr Veloso that you must do whatever the Probation Service require of you in terms of courses, in terms of training, in terms of studies and in terms of behaviour and that is the basis upon which we impose the order that we do.  It would have been easy for the Court in the light of what you have done in the past and the way you have responded to non-custodial measures to simply have washed our hands of you and imposed a custodial sentence.  We are giving you this opportunity because we think that you can respond to the appropriate interventions but it is very much in your hands whether there is a success made of this or not.  Do you understand?  That is the order of the Court. 

Authorities

AG v Allen [2023] JRC 184

AG v Rawlinson [2023] JRC 153

AG v Veloso [2015] JRC 265

AG v Veloso [2015] JRC 152

AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR Notes-14a