[2004]JRC071

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th April 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

PNG de C

 

 

2 counts of:

Grave and criminal assault (Counts 1 and 2).

 

Age:     17

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Count 1 - On 11^th December 2003, Defendant was at Christmas party arranged by de la Salle College and Beaulieu Convent.  He was with his girlfriend, KG.  His girlfriend went to the cloakroom, passing two youths, BF and AL, who allegedly made derogatory remarks to her.  When KG returned to the Defendant she told him about the alleged altercation.  Later at interview the Defendant said he was “pissed off” by what she reported and confronted BF and AL, when words were exchanged.  The Defendant grabbed AL by the collar of his shirt and pushed him against a corridor wall;  BF tried to intervene telling him to leave his friend alone, whereupon the Defendant turned and head butted BF in the face, fracturing his nose which bled profusely.  After the assault the Defendant walked away and BF, after trying to deal with his injuries in the cloakroom, was taken to A & E Department by a friend.  The Defendant was asked to leave the premises by the Director of the Potteries, which he did without incident.  About a week after the assault, BF had his nose reset under general anaesthetic.  At interview, the Defendant admitted he was drunk at the time of the assault which he claimed was “a reaction”.

Count 2 – Whilst on remand from the Magistrate’s court in respect of Count 1, the Defendant went to a New Year’s Eve function at the Pure Bar and Club at Weighbridge.  He met up with some friends.  All were drinking under age.  Some time after midnight the Defendant and JC were having a conversation which became heated and then, apparently without provocation, the Defendant bit JC’s nose, causing it to bleed profusely.  JC was taken to A & E Department were his injuries required six stitches.  On the way to Police HQ, the Defendant admitted what he had done but later at interview he claimed that he had blacked out and could not remember what had happened.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Count 1 - Defendant urged there had been racist remarks made by BF and AL towards his girlfriend, but accepted that his behaviour was unacceptable.  Attack not premeditated and left premises without any further trouble.

Count 2 – Accepted that should not have been in nightclub, under-aged drinking.  Claimed victim pushed and scratched him first, but had momentary loss of control fuelled by alcohol.  No father in his life.  Mother supportive and in Court.  Until recently had been in employment with good training as apprentice electrician.  Accepted poor criminal record, but had completed community service satisfactorily.  Apologised to the Court.  Reference from local football club.  Urged community service as direct alternative, so that defendant could attend training course at Highlands in autumn.  No objection to Exclusion Order.

 

Previous Convictions:

Described as “persistent young offender”; four previous convictions, the first on his fifteenth birthday being common assault.  Three other convictions comprising five offences: malicious damage, breach of probation, obstructing/refusing to obey the police, breach of Binding Over Order and common assault on 19^th April, 2003, in respect of which he was sentenced to 50 hours’ Community Service.

 

Conclusions:

2 years’ youth detention on each count, concurrent so as not to offend the totality principle.  Exclusion Order under Article 2 of the 1998 Law in respect of on-licence premises for a period of 2 years, to commence the day upon which the defendant is released from prison (Article 2(5)).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	1 year’s youth detention
Count 2:	1 year’s youth detention, concurrent.
	2 years’ exclusion order from licensed premises to run from date of release from youth detention.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE Commissioner:

1.        PNG de C is 17 years of age.  He therefore falls to be sentenced under the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.

2.        He faces 2 separate counts of grave and criminal assault.  Both of them are very serious.  In the first he was at a Christmas party organised by De La Salle College and Beaulieu Convent at the Jersey Potteries.  It was about 11 p.m. when there was some form of altercation concerning a girl, a friend of PNG de C and he head-butted someone trying to intervene without any warning or provocation.

3.        We have a letter from the girlfriend who is not in Jersey today.  It is dated 11^th February, but surprisingly the Crown only received it a few days ago.  It explains the apparent racist remarks that are alleged to have been made.  If someone did say to the girl “Fuck off you porco slut” and she reported that to PNG de C he was, as a self-confessed “hard man”, no doubt, determined on some form of retribution.

4.        We believe that there was probably greater provocation than that relied on by the Crown.  Nevertheless, it was a vicious attack and by someone who had been drinking.  The complainant had to have his nose reset under general anaesthetic and his injury may prevent him from pursuing his career in the RAF as a pilot.

5.        PNG de C clearly has problems with aggression and what he was doing drinking under age in licensed premises is not for us today.  He was remanded at the Magistrate’s Court on a warning to the 13^th January.  It was on New Year’s Eve, while that warning was still in force, that he went with friends to the Pure Bar and Club at the Weighbridge.  Again he was drinking and there was some kind of altercation and a witness saw PNG de C on top of one of his friends.  This witness apparently pulled him off and saw blood on his friend’s nose.  He said this “I saw that JC’s nose had been split on the right nostril and a cut on his left nostril.  I don’t know how it had been done but I don’t believe it was by punching”.  As we have heard it was a bite on the nose.  PNG de C admitted that and, of course, he was under age and was then on a warning for an already serious offence.

6.        He admitted that he had drunk five pints and two bottles of Budweiser.  The complainant required 6 stitches at the Accident and Emergency Department and he may be scarred.

7.        The Defendant is described by the Crown as a persistent young offender.  He has four previous convictions.  The first was on his 15^th birthday.  There is nothing, as Advocate Pearmain has told us, of grave and criminal assault in his record, but he clearly had severe anger problems.  He mentions that he blacks out when committing violence.  That, Mrs Pearmain tells us, is merely a description of his lack of control.

8.        We have, of course, carefully studied the probation Report and particularly the cases referred to us by the Crown.  In Harrison and the Attorney General [2004]JCA046, a Court of Appeal judgment, the Court said it is required that we look at:

“All matters relating to the offence particularly and including

(a)       the nature of the deliberation with which the assault was carried out;

(b)       whether the blow was aimed or random;

(c)       whether the incident arose as a result of a loss of temper or was committed in cold blood;

(d)       what was the degree of force with which the blow must have been struck;

(e)       the nature, extent, gravity and permanence of the injury occasioned;…”.

9.        Under Article 4 of the Law we have a duty under Article 4(2) and that duty is expressed in this way:

“A court shall not pass a sentence of youth detention unless it considers that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate because it appears to the court that –

(a)       he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them; or

(b)       only a custodial sentence will be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him; or

(c)       the offence or the totality of the offending is so serious that a non custodial sentence cannot be justified.

10.      Everything on the face of it calls for a custodial sentence, and particularly the learned Jurats have considered the offence or the totality of the offending as being so serious that a non custodial sentence cannot be justified.  I have to say that they have found this case particularly difficult.

11.      PNG de C has been given every chance by the Magistrate’s Court in the past, and we feel that we must punish you for the offences that you have committed and you will have to go to the youth detention centre, but you will be there for a shorter time than that recommended by the Crown Advocate.

12.      You may well have blighted the future career of one of those whom you so viciously assaulted.  You have already served a community order and you have been told that it was a direct alternative to custody at that time.  I have to say that when you have served the sentence of youth detention that the Court is going to impose you will be liable to supervision by a Probation Officer or some other person on your release.  There will also be an exclusion order under Article 2 of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998 for a period of 2 years from the date that you are released from detention.

13.      It is the decision of the Court that you are going to serve 12 months’ on each count but those counts will be served concurrently.

Authorities

R –v- Rigg (16^th May, 1997) Unreported Judgment of Court of Criminal Appeal of England and Wales.

A.G. –v- Bisson (23^rd August, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/157].

Harrison and the Attorney General [2004]JCA046.

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998.