[2008]JRC168

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th September 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Darren Maurice Hare

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 20^th June, 2008, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  40.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant has a heroin habit.  He had given the victim £20 to buy him some drugs.  The victim had not provided the drugs.  The defendant then saw the victim by chance in town.  The defendant had a knife he was carrying around.  He punched, kicked and then stabbed the victim demanding repayment.  The victim sustained nasty wound to arm.  Full recovery expected save for scarring.  Victim refused to cooperate with Police and wrote to Court asking for mercy in respect of sentence. 

Details of Mitigation:

There was a conflict of opinion as to whether or not the defendant’s actions related simply to his heroin addiction or whether his actions related to more fundamental underlying causes.  The defendant’s history was complex and he had spent time in the 1990s receiving treatment in Broadmoor Hospital under diagnosis of psychopathic disorder. 

Previous Convictions:

Defendant had an appalling record.  In excess of 130 convictions.

Conclusions:

Total:  4 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Forfeiture of the knife sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The majority of the Court would have been minded to order the defendant to attend a specialist centre in the UK.  The Court was informed that the funding for such a placement had been refused by the States of Jersey – “a pity”.  The Court therefore felt it had no choice but to adopt the Prosecution conclusions.  No hesitation in agreeing the starting point. 

Conclusions granted.

H. Sharpe, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has found this a most difficult case.  The defendant has an appalling record.  He has spent much of his life in prison and has become institutionalised.  He is presently before the Court for a grave and criminal assault involving the use of a knife.

2.        The background is that he had lent the victim £200, apparently to buy some heroin.  The victim did not give him the drugs nor did he repay the money.  The defendant was clearly annoyed at this.  On the day in question, the defendant was in possession of a lock knife.  He apparently carries it about for his protection from people he knows. 

3.        On the day in question at about lunchtime, he chanced upon the victim in the street.  Eye witnesses saw him punch and kick the victim and during the altercation the defendant stabbed the victim in the upper left arm, penetrating to some 2-3 cm.  The victim, who knew the defendant well, attended at accident and emergency where the wound was stitched.  We have no further evidence from the victim but it seems highly probable and we proceed on the basis, that there were no long term consequences of the assault.  The victim refused to make any complaint and indeed has written to the Court in support of the defendant, but some of the eye witnesses called the police because of what they had seen and hence the investigation and prosecution. 

4.        The Court has repeatedly said that violence in the streets of St. Helier is not to be tolerated and will be severely dealt with.  The use of a weapon, such as a knife, of course increases the seriousness of an assault and indeed, the mere carrying of a knife is a serious matter, because even if it is concealed or carried for bravado or in the belief that its use in possible self-defence might arise, it takes only a moment of irritation or drunkenness, anger, a perceived insult or something utterly trivial, for the knife to be produced with the result that offences of great seriousness may be committed, including of course not only assaults but ultimately manslaughter or even murder. 

5.        In the circumstances the Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the Crown that the correct starting point for this offence is one of 7 years’ imprisonment.  But when the matter first came before the Court on 5^th August, the Court was presented with a number of reports.  These suggested that if the defendant’s course of criminal conduct was ever to be brought to an end, now was the time.  The defendant had serious psychological issues as well as a heroin dependency and if these could be addressed, there might be some hope.  Accordingly, for the reasons which we described at the time, the Court took the exceptional step of adjourning sentence in order to see if some form of residential treatment in the United Kingdom could be found.  The Court did however, emphasise that prison was still the likely outcome but it wanted to explore every option. 

6.        Today the Court has received updated information and we would like to express our gratitude to the probation service for the considerable efforts they have clearly made during the adjournment to meet the Court’s request.  We have also had the advantage of hearing from Mr Ibbotson and Mr Cutland of the Probation Service in evidence today.  Stepps Treatment Centre in Gloucestershire has provided a report for us following a visit of one of its officers to see the defendant in prison.  Stepps is willing to offer the defendant a placement on one of its residential courses.  We have had the advantage of reading and hearing of those courses and they would address both aspects of the defendant’s problems, namely his psychological issues and also his heroin dependence.  It would be a challenging and demanding course and it would also have the advantage of providing supported living structure after the conclusion of the residential part of the course, which normally lasts something in the region of 20 weeks although this varies depending upon the particular offender. 

7.        The Court’s difficulty is that it is faced with a difference in professional opinion.  Dr Harrison and Mr Gafoor feel that the real problem at present is the defendant’s heroin addiction.  They feel that, if that could be addressed, the prospects would improve dramatically and they feel that that can be addressed by a conventional Probation Order in Jersey coupled with a treatment order.  Conversely, Miss Emsley and the Probation Service consider that, as well as his heroin dependency, the defendant has deep-seated and complex psychological problems which could not be as satisfactorily addressed in Jersey under a conventional probation order. 

8.        The Court has considered this matter very carefully.  However, we remain of the opinion which we expressed provisionally last time, that the only non-custodial alternative which could be justified for such a serious offence would be a specialist residential course of the type offered by Stepps.  The Court believes that the defendant’s problems are far more complex than just a heroin dependency and that, if there is to be any chance of turning the corner, his other problems have to be addressed.  In our judgment that means that the necessary work has to be undertaken within the discipline of a residential course out of Jersey, away from familiar difficulties and temptations.  The defendant has been placed on a number of previous orders and although they were successfully completed for the most part in the sense that he did not breach them, they did not prevent his re-offending and therefore did not satisfactorily address the underlying problems. 

9.        Despite the seriousness of the offence, a majority of the Court would have been willing to treat this as a truly exceptional case and would have taken the chance of trying finally to bring the defendant’s criminal behaviour to an end by imposing a probation order on condition that he attend the Stepps residential course.  But we are informed that the Health and Social Services department is not willing to fund the Stepps course.  We are told that there is no prospect of them changing their mind.  We think that is most unfortunate but, given that decision on their part, the order which the majority would have preferred to make is not available to us.  The Court is unanimous in its view that a probation order in Jersey, whether or not coupled with residence at Silkworth Lodge, does not in this particular case and in the case of this particular defendant, offer sufficient prospect of dealing with the defendant’s complex psychological needs as to justify a non-custodial sentence. 

10.      In the circumstances, and with some regret in view of the decision of the Health and Social Services department to refuse to pay for the Stepps course, the Court has no alternative but to impose a prison sentence.  However we very much hope that whilst in custody the defendant will continue the good work with Miss Emsley and will also take advantage of the through care programme which we have heard about from the probation service.  We are comforted by the efforts the probation service will clearly make both during the sentence and when the defendant is released, because we are very supportive of the defendant’s attempts to try and turn his life around.  In the circumstances as we say, we see no alternative but to a prison sentence.  

11.      We take into account his guilty plea and all the other matters set out in the reports and the letter we have received from the defendant.  However, for this offence and taking account to the mitigation, we think the Crown has allowed sufficient, and accordingly the conclusions are correct.

12.      The sentence on Count 1 is 4½ years’ imprisonment, on Count 2; 4 months concurrent, so that is 4½ years in total. 

13.      We order the forfeiture of the knife.

Authorities

Harrison –v-AG [2004] JLR 111.