Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny - assault
Before : |
A. J. Olsen MBE, Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Averty and Le Cornu |
The Attorney General
-v-
Glen Rhys Le Claire
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
1 count of: |
Larceny (Count 1). |
5 counts of: |
Assault (Counts 2 - 6). |
Age: 32.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1: larceny
On 12 May 2024 the Defendant entered the Morrisons Daily store on Kensington Place with two other males and a female and placed a bottle of Southern Comfort whiskey valued at £33.99 down the front of his trousers. The Defendant took a 10-pack of Stella Artois lager to the till, which he paid for, but left without paying for the bottle of whiskey.
Count 2: assault
On 31 May 2024 the Ambulance Service attended the Co-Op store on Phillips Street following a report of a male having collapsed outside. Paramedics arrived at the scene and located the Defendant on the ground. The male paramedic approached the Defendant, roused him and helped him sit up. As the Defendant sat up, he opened his eyes and asked, "who are you, what do you want?", then said "you're going to get it". The paramedics explained that they were there to help him and asked him to calm down, and they assisted him to his feet. The Defendant became verbally aggressive and told the male paramedic, "I am going to punch you", before lashing out and striking the paramedic to the right side of his face with an open palm, knocking his glasses to the ground. The paramedic backed away from the Defendant. The Defendant continued towards him as he retreated backwards, saying "I'm going to get you". A member of the public intervened by holding the Defendant back. However, once released, the Defendant continued to walk towards the paramedic with aggression and a clenched fist. The paramedic sustained no injury, but felt shaken up.
Count 3: assault on police officer
On 8 July 2024 the intoxicated Defendant became enraged in police custody, banging his fist down on the desk before running around the custody desk towards two officers. The Defendant was then escorted to a custody cell and was shouting at the officers. As he was being put in the cell, he deliberately punched PC Burgin to the right side of his face, striking his jaw with a clenched fist, dazing him and causing him to stumble backwards. The Defendant continued to be aggressive and tried to force his way out of the cell. It took a number of officers to get him back inside. PC Burgin suffered pain to his jaw and mild swelling to his cheek and jaw.
Count 4: assault
On 19 July 2024, Victim A saw the Defendant, who was known to him. After purchasing a bottle of whisky, the Defendant invited him back to his address. At the Defendant's home they consumed alcohol. The Defendant's ex-partner later arrived at the address and a conversation between them became heated, resulting in him becoming violent towards her and physically forcing her out of the flat. Victim A was scared for his own safety. The Defendant was very intoxicated, and Victim A tried to calm him down, but he was scared and wanted to leave. The Defendant got very close to Victim A, making him feel uncomfortable, so he tried to push the Defendant away, who then started punching him to the head, neck and face. Victim A curled up in a ball to protect himself. The Defendant punched Victim A multiple times. Victim A managed to get the Defendant off him and ran towards the front door. The Defendant tried to pull him back by grabbing his clothing, but Victim A managed to escape.
Victim A suffered multiple bruises to the forehead, cheek, eye, redness to his scalp and a laceration to his palm.
Counts 5 and 6: assaults
On 4 August 2024, the Defendant and his ex-partner returned to his home address where he lived with his mother. Both the Defendant and his ex-partner had been drinking that morning, were intoxicated and began arguing over a bottle of vodka. The Defendant's mother came into the kitchen and calmed them down. Shortly thereafter, his ex-partner came to the doorway of the living room and said to the Defendant, "You need to be more of a man, you need to grow a pair of balls." The Defendant pushed her and told her to leave the address, and they continued to argue, causing the Defendant's mother to intervene to calm the situation.
Another verbal altercation began between the Defendant and his ex-partner, leading to him asking her to leave the flat and pushing her. They continued to argue, and the Defendant appeared as if he was going to strike her. She said to him, "Go on then, hit me, bigger men have hit me." The Defendant attempted to punch his ex-partner, but his mother intervened. The Defendant tried to punch his ex-partner a further twice, but both attempts were prevented by his mother. The Defendant then punched his ex-partner three times to the face, but she managed to cover her face. The Defendant's mother pulled him away from her, and he responded by throwing his mother onto the sofa and punching her to the left shoulder once, before returning to his ex-partner and successfully punching her a further two times directly in the face.
The Defendant's mother called the police, which angered the Defendant. He came towards her and repeatedly struck her, with a clenched fist, to the shoulder and back; she was shouting at him to stop. The Defendant left the flat saying that he was going outside to calm down, after which he returned to the flat and apologised to both victims. His ex-partner suffered bruises and swelling to her eye and an abrasion to her nose.
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant had the benefit of early guilty pleas. The Defendant also expressed some remorse for his actions, having apologised for assaulting PC Burgin, Victim A, his ex-partner and his mother.
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has previous convictions for 36 offences including violence, public disorder, dishonesty, offences against property and one sexual offence. The Defendant has two previous convictions for assaults on police, one of which resulted in a prison sentence.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
No separate penalty. |
Count 2: |
8 months' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
8 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 4: |
8 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 5: |
10 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 6: |
4 months' imprisonment, concurrent with Count 5. |
Total: 2 years and 10 months' imprisonment.
The Crown invited the Court to consider compensation and costs.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: |
1 week's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 2: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 4: |
6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 5: |
6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
Count 6: |
4 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years' imprisonment.
No compensation or costs order made.
L. Sette Esq., Crown Advocate.
The Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
Advocate E. L. Burns as Amicus Curiae.
JUDGMENT
THE Lieutenant BAILIFF:
1. Glen Rhys Le Claire, over the course of a period of fewer than three months between mid-May and early August last year you committed a total of six offences. Some of the later ones were committed while you were under investigation and indeed on police bail for your earlier crimes. Five of the counts on the Indictment charge you with assault. One of these was against a paramedic and another of your victims was a police officer during the execution of his duty. It is clear to us from what we have read and from the video footage that we have viewed that the paramedic was trying to help you, and we would describe both his approach and that of his female colleague as caring and gentle. We note that you have thirteen previous convictions involving a total of thirty-six offences. Five of these are for violence and two involve assaults on the police.
2. As you will have heard the Crown Advocate tell us, members of the emergency services are entitled to feel and be safe at work, and this type of gratuitous violence towards them is simply intolerable. The Crown submits that such offences must be treated seriously and with a deterrent element attached to the sentence. We accept that submission.
3. The attacks on your two female victims were carried out in a domestic context, one victim being your former partner and the other your mother. This domestic context makes your offending more serious, because it represents a violation of the trust and security that normally exists between people in an intimate or family relationship. We acknowledge also that you have assaulted your mother before. But we do take into account that there was significant provocation on the part of your former partner, that afterwards you sat and waited for the police to arrive and that you immediately apologised to your victims once you had calmed down, and we give you credit for these factors.
4. Whilst the assault on Victim A (Count 4) falls into neither of the two categories that we have just identified, it was nonetheless a thoroughly nasty and unpleasant one. You had invited him into your home for a drink, then following an altercation with your former partner you started to behave in a way that made your victim feel scared and uncomfortable. For no reason that we can discern - apart from your state of intoxication at the time - you suddenly started punching your victim to the head neck and face. As he tried to escape your home and your violent behaviour, you sought to prevent him to do so by pulling at his clothing. Victim A's hearing aid was damaged in this altercation. He eventually managed to make good his escape having suffered what are described to us as more than minor injuries: injuries of which we have seen photographs. You had offered hospitality to Victim A, who was at that time your friend. He was entitled to feel and be safe in your company. We consider that your victim was entitled to trust you, having accepted your offer of hospitality. You breached that trust, and we regard that as an aggravating feature.
5. We have briefly referred to intoxication in the context of Count 4. The fact of the matter is, though, that all six offences were committed while you were intoxicated to a greater or lesser degree. Intoxication is no excuse for your behaviour, neither does it constitute any degree of mitigation. On the contrary it is an aggravating feature. Thus it is that every one of the assault offences is aggravated in two separate ways
6. As to mitigation we cannot identify any mitigating features in the offences themselves, save in regard to Count 5, the assault on your former partner, as we have said.
7. As for personal mitigation it is clear from the Pre-Sentence Report that your early years were very difficult for you and that you have had many challenges to face, some of them exceptional, over the course of your thirty-two-year life. You have expressed remorse, although that is qualified somewhat by paragraph 18 of the Pre-Sentence Report. When you addressed us this morning, however, we gained the impression that the regret that you expressed for the assault on your mother was entirely genuine.
8. You pleaded guilty to all charges at the earliest opportunity, and we allow full credit for those guilty pleas. We also take into account that Counts 2 and 3 involved only one single punch.
9. You are assessed at being at a high risk of reconviction.
10. For the reasons submitted by the Crown and supported by the Pre-Sentence Report, an individualised sanction is not appropriate in this case and therefore a custodial sentence, whilst regrettable, is inevitable. The Crown has correctly submitted that because the assaults on your former partner and your mother arise out of the same incident it is possible for us to pass concurrent sentences in respect of these two offences and indeed, we propose to do so. All other offences, however, arise out of totally separate and unrelated incidents and warrant consecutive sentences. The Amicus Curiae, Advocate Burns concurs with the Crown's assessment of the principles to be applied in this case.
11. We have also considered the principle of totality to ensure that the total sentence is not excessive and properly reflects the sum total of your criminality. Having done so, we propose to reduce the conclusions sought by the Crown.
12. Mr Le Claire, will you please stand. Count 1, the sentence will be 1 week's imprisonment concurrent. Count 2, 6 months' imprisonment consecutive. Count 3, 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. Count 4, 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. Count 5, 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive. Count 6, 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent. Thus making a total of 2 years' imprisonment in all.
13. There will be no compensation orders and there is no order for costs.
14. Paragraph 66 of the Pre-Sentence Report reads:
"A previous Probation report by Adelaide Ormesher described Mr Le Claire in these terms - "Mr Le Claire possess a range of skills and abilities that can, and indeed have, helped him survive the instabilities, injuries and abandonments from his early years. He can present as intelligent and likeable and can demonstrate appropriate life skills and concern for others."
What lovely words, Mr Le Claire. We have had no alternative but to send you to prison today, but that does not mean we have given up on you. Use your time well, get fit, take advantage of as many of the training and educational facilities at La Moye as you can and please try your very best to have done with alcohol once and for all, as alcohol has prevented you thus far from being the intelligent and likeable citizen that Ms Ormesher talked about. Do everything you can to become that person.
15. Finally, before we rise, we would like to commend the paramedics, Mr Rolland and Ms Pallot, for their courage and professionalism. These were very difficult and potentially dangerous circumstances and they both handled themselves commendably, indeed remarkably well.
Authorities