[2006]JRC074
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
10th May 2006
Before :
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff and
Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Georgelin, Le Cornu and Morgan.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Vincent John Cooper
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court,
on guilty pleas to:
1 count of:
|
Malicious Damage.
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and Criminal Assault.
|
1 count of:
|
Having in a public place an offensive weapon
contrary to Article 43 (1) of the Firearms (Jersey)
Law 2000.
|
Age: 23
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
Count 1. the Defendant was refused service in a
public house because he was drunk whereupon he poured his drink over the
barman’s head. During the
course of being ejected from the premises, a window was broken.
Counts 2 and 3. The Defendant had been drinking alcohol
with two male friends for several hours in public houses on 12th December, 2005. At the time, the Defendant had been in
dispute with his former employer, Adrian Baker, who had sacked him. The Defendant alleged that Mr Baker owed
him approximately £600. Mr
Baker and another male were also drinking alcohol in the public house. Words were exchanged and Mr Baker and
the Defendant left the pub and went to Patriotic Street car park where there was
an initial altercation. The victim
of Count 2 was present at this time but did not take part in the fight. Later that evening the victim and two
male friends were in the Parade
Gardens when they came
across Mr Baker and the Defendant.
Further words were exchanged.
The victim walked away from the group but he was pursued by the
Defendant who attacked him with a small craft knife. The Defendant alleged that the victim
had pulled a knife on him first:
the victim admitted that he had been in possession of a Stanley knife, which he said he used at
work. The Defendant alleged he had
only struck one blow but the victim suffered serious, deep lacerations to his
chest and his right forearm, cutting him deeply from elbow to wrist. The wounds required surgery under
general anaesthetic. The
victim’s arm was then placed in a plaster cast, to allow the severed
ligaments to heal. Defendant
initially gave ‘no comment’ answers at interview. The other male witnesses initially
misled the police as to who was responsible for the attack. However, when the Defendant and
witnesses were aware of the extent of the injuries suffered, the Defendant
admitted full responsibility and this was corroborated by the witnesses.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea. Defendant alleged he had been provoked
and the victim had pulled a knife on him.
Remorse. Defendant drug
addict and problem with alcohol.
Offence committed whilst intoxicated. Claimed to be traumatised by episode and
taking anti-depressant drugs. When
shown extent of victim’s injuries, had fully co-operated with
police. Residual youth.
Previous Convictions:
Sixteen convictions for
forty-nine offences but none for violence.
Five breaches of probation, two breaches of Community Service Orders and
a breach of a Young Offender’s licence.
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
1 week’s imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment.
|
Count 3:
|
6 months’ imprisonment.
|
Forfeiture and destruction of
knife.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1:
|
1 week’s imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
4 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 3:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, all
concurrent.
|
|
Forfeiture and
destruction of knife.
S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1.
It is a
disturbing feature of this case that the defendant was carrying a blade of some
kind which he was prepared to use as a weapon. Unfortunately we have not seen the weapon
in question and we express the hope that the Attorney General will issue a
standing instruction to his Crown Advocates to ensure that any weapon involved
in an offence for which a defendant is to be sentenced is made available to the
Court.
2.
We have
been told that the weapon in question here is a craft knife attached to a key
ring and we have interpreted this as meaning a form of Stanley knife. Defence counsel was prepared to accept
that description of the weapon in question.
3.
The
scenario presented to us by the defence, namely that the defendant responded
aggressively to extreme provocation from the victim breaking the craft knife
off the key ring and causing the serious injuries to the victim in one slashing
movement seems to us inherently implausible. Nevertheless in the absence of sight of
the knife and key ring we are going to accept it and will sentence the
defendant on that basis.
4.
It does
seem to us surprising that such a deep long wound could be caused to the inside
of the arm at the same time as a wound to the chest, but we accept the
explanation. We also accept that
the victim was wearing nothing but a T-shirt in December so that there was little
if any clothing to penetrate.
5.
Having
said all that it remains a very serous matter to commit a grave and criminal
assault with a knife in a public place in all the circumstances of this
offence. The Court will not
tolerate violence of this kind. The
defendant has a bad record, but he has no previous conviction for
violence. Counsel has put a number
of mitigating factors before us.
The defendant is a young man of 23, and he has pleaded guilty to the
offences. He was subject to extreme
provocation from the victim and has expressed his remorse for the
offences. He is said to have been
greatly affected by the consequences of his violent attack and has apologised
to the victim. Furthermore, he
co-operated with the police and told them where he had hidden the knife. Taking all the mitigation available to
the defendant fully into consideration we will impose the following sentences.
6.
On Count
1, you will be sentenced to 1 week’s imprisonment. On Count 2, to 4 years’
imprisonment. On Count 3, to 6 months’
imprisonment, all those sentences to run concurrently making a total of 4
years’ imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the
knife.
No Authorities