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 Page [2024] JRC 172 (20 August 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_172.html
Cite as: [2024] JRC 172
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - larceny
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Dulake, Austin-Vautier, Hughes, Entwistle and Berry. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Andrew Scott Page
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize trial to the following charge on the First Indictment and a guilty plea to the following charge on the Second Indictment:
First Indictment
|
1 count of: |
Grave and criminal assault (Count 1). |
Second Indictment
|
1 count of: |
Larceny (Count 1). |
Age: 45.
Plea: Not guilty to the charge on the First Indictment. Guilty to the charge on the Second Indictment.
Details of Offence:
Grave and Criminal
At the time of the offence, the Defendant and the Victim had been in an intimate relationship and the Defendant was mainly residing at the home of the Victim.
The Defendant had taken a cocktail of prescription drugs with alcohol and the Victim stated he was "completely smashed out of his head".
After goading her and falsely accusing her of cheating, the Defendant attacked the Victim which included trying to gouge her eyes, grabbing her around the throat, pushing her on to the floor, placing all his weight on her so that she could not breathe, pulling her hair and hit her head against the doorframe 2 to 4 times. Finally the Victim recalled being kicked in the stomach and back.
At one point in the assault, the Victim had her back to the kitchen drawers, and she reached behind her for something to protect herself. She grabbed a knife from the drawer and held it by her side. In response the Defendant grabbed a kitchen knife from the kitchen sink and poked her in the stomach inviting the Victim to "plunge" her knife into him. The Victim dropped her knife and the Defendant then put his knife back on the draining rack.
In describing how the Defendant had strangled her, the Victim stated the Defendant had grabbed her around the throat. She stated his hands were around her windpipe and as he applied pressure the Victim explained how she could not breathe, and her legs "went". She described how she still feels a lump in her throat over a year later.
The next morning the Victim sent a series of text messages and in one text the Defendant responded apologising for arguing the night before. The Victim allowed the Defendant to return the next morning but an argument broke out about the night before and the Defendant left. After leaving the flat, the Defendant attended Police Headquarters and reported that the Victim had assaulted him but he did not wish to make a formal complaint. He stated he wanted to make an official report regarding the loss of his prescription medication so he could use the report to obtain replacements for that medication. Officers noted that the Defendant had scratch marks to his face and neck, and blood on his clothes and after the Defendant gave an inconsistent and confusing account, officers attended the Victim's home, where she reported the incident to the officers.
The Defendant continued to deny the assault at trial and insisted he had merely defended himself. The Victim suffered bruising and abrasions consistent with her account.
Aggravating features in the First Indictment were that it occurred in a domestic setting, the Defendant had been drinking alcohol together with excess prescription drugs, it was also a case of non-fatal strangulation and he had used a knife to threaten the Victim. The Defendant also put the Victim through the ordeal of a trial and continued to deny he assaulted the Victim.
Second Indictment (Larceny)
The Defendant and his partner entered the jewellers when there were no other customers. His partner recorded the incident on her mobile phone. The Defendant spoke with the elderly man running the shop and made derogatory remarks and accusations regarding his sexual conduct. The Defendant and his partner then started asking to see various pieces of jewellery which the shop assistant complied with.
After approximately ten minutes of the Defendant and his partner looking at jewellery, the shop assistant locked up a window display with his back turned to the Defendant. The Defendant then took a bracelet from a jewellery display pad on the shop counter and took the bracelet. This was not seen by the shop assistant.
The Defendant initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea to Guilty 10 days prior to trial.
Aggravating features for the Second Indictment were that it involved an elderly man who would have been distressed by the ordeal, the Defendant's extensive record for similar offences and the offence had an element of planning.
Probation assessed the Defendant as being at high risk of reconviction in the next 12 months and presented as a moderate risk of causing physical harm and a high risk of causing psychological harm both in terms of theft/burglary and interpersonal offences.
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant was not remorseful and had no other mitigation.
Previous Convictions:
Appalling criminal record with 46 convictions for 235 offences. Two offences against the persons and 114 for offences of theft and kindred offences.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
|
Count 1: |
4½ years' imprisonment. |
Second Indictment
|
Count 1: |
2 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment. |
Total: 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
The Crown also sought a Domestic Abuse Protection Order ("DAPO") for a period of 10 years together with an order that the Defendant be subject to notification requirements for a period of 10 years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
The Court granted the DAPO for a period of 7 years, and ordered the Defendant be subject to notification requirements for the same period i.e. 7 years.
Ms C. Hall, Crown Advocate.
Advocate H. J. Heath for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today for a grave and criminal assault on your former partner in December 2022 and separately for the theft of a bracelet from a jewellers in St Helier in May of 2023.
2. We do not need to set out the full details of the matters alleged against you because they have been set out in the Attorney General's summary of facts. Without intending these remarks then to be exhaustive, with regard to the grave and criminal assault you had taken a significant number of prescription drugs following which you behaved strangely both on the return journey to the address where you and the Complainant were staying, resulting in you being asked to leave a shop along the way, and then on return to your address behaving erratically in the preparation of food before picking a fight with your then partner and behaving violently towards her. That violence caused such fear that she had to grab a kitchen knife from the drawer and held it by her side. Your abusive behaviour continued and you behaved with violence towards her putting your weight on her so she was unable to breathe, hitting her head against a doorframe and, on the Complainant's evidence, kicking her in the stomach and back. You also put your hands around her windpipe and partially strangled her. She describes you as laughing saying you do not hit women and it must have been, on any analysis, an horrific and terrifying experience for her.
3. The larceny from the jewellers began with you making derogatory remarks relating to the owner and the shop assistant, an elderly gentleman, was shocked and distressed as a result. You sought to be shown various pieces of jewellery and whilst his back was turned you took a bracelet from the jewellery display pad and left without paying for it. The bracelet was valued at approximately £200.
4. For the grave and criminal assault we have read the Victim Impact Statement and your Victim's injuries were consistent with the facts as we have had them explained to us by the Crown. We do not underestimate the psychological harm that was caused as a result.
5. In our view the Crown has correctly characterised the nature of the grave and criminal assault against the criteria set out in Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111. We accept it was not a premeditated assault but during the course of it you attempted unsuccessfully to gouge your Victim's eyes and as we have already indicated, the attack included grabbing her around the throat, applying pressure to the windpipe, holding a knife to her stomach and placing all of your weight on her causing her to struggle to breath and hitting her head against a door frame and finally kicking her in the stomach and back. These actions cannot be described as other than intentional and deliberate. We also accept that the incident arose as a loss of temper and given your Victim's injuries it is clear the degree of force that was used. There was no apparent provocation.
6. You have a history of criminal activity including convictions for offences against the person and possession of offensive and prohibited weapons.
7. The Crown has suggested to us that the fact that the assault took place in the Victim's home, that you were under the influence of alcohol and prescribed medication, and that you brandished a knife as aggravating factors and we can only agree that they are such. There is no doubt there was an abuse of trust or power involved and you knew your Victim to be vulnerable because she has a history of mental illness of which you were aware. She had to leave her home and originally went to the Women's Refuge for safety.
8. With regard to the grave and criminal assault you do not have the benefit of a guilty plea and your Victim had to come to the Court and give evidence. There is no other particular mitigation evident in connection with that offence.
9. The Crown has put before us the case of Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 140 because of the approach of the Court to domestic violence and the factors that the Court took into account which we have listed in these few remarks already. Your counsel argues however that the case of Coelho was much more serious and the sentence was lower than that moved for by the Crown. It is generally, in our view not advisable nor helpful to argue from one earlier case to a general approach to the level of sentencing but that was not the reason why the case of Coelho was put before us. It was for the approach of the Court and the factors that it viewed as significant.
10. In recent years the Court has become much more astute to the consequences and evils of domestic violence in the home and in particular to non-fatal strangulation, which is a serious aggravating feature, and which is a factor also in this case.
11. You do, of course, have the benefit of a guilty plea in connection with the larceny but there is no other mitigation other than that that we can detect in connection with that offence.
12. In mitigation your counsel has urged us to take into account your background and drawn our attention to particular sections of the relevant report. They disclose very serious matters and we do not in any sense minimise them but you have been on medication for a considerable period and it happened comparatively a long time ago and you could have sought help in the intervening period. Whereas we do not trivialise what happened to you, there must come a time when the relevance of that for sentencing purposes is significantly reduced and we have taken the view, that that time has been reached.
13. Remorse is normally a matter the Court can take into account but it is clear from the background report that you do not feel any remorse for your Victim in the grave and criminal, you continue to deny the assault of which you were convicted by the jury. The background report assesses you at a high risk of reconviction.
14. We have been asked to impose a Domestic Abuse Protection Order and we think it is entirely appropriate that we do so. In the Victim personal statement your Victim says she does not want you to be able to contact her ever again and needs to feel safe and we accordingly do impose such an order as requested by the Crown:
(i) That you are prohibited from contacting, directly or indirectly, the Victim;
(ii) That you are prohibited from going to any address that you know or believe to be the home address of the Victim;
(iii) That you are prohibited from going to any address that you know or believe to be the work address of the Victim;
(iv) Should you see or come into contact with the Victim in any public or private place, you must take immediate action to avoid any breach of the Order.
We believe the appropriate period for the imposition of this order is not as requested by the Crown but is one of 7 years and we accordingly impose it for that period.
15. We have also been asked to impose notification requirements under the Law and we agree that that would be appropriate and you are subject accordingly to those requirements for the same period, namely 7 years.
16. Turning to the sentence, it was the view of the Court that the Crown has approached this correctly in terms of the tariff and for grave and criminal assault you are sentenced to 4½ years imprisonment, for larceny 2 months' imprisonment consecutive, making a total of 4 years and 8 months.
Authorities
AG v Duffy [2017] JRC131
AG v Moiro [2020] JRC 048
AG v Lawlor [2009] JRC 150
AG v Page [2019] JRC139
Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022