[2009]JRC242

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th December 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Ashton Helier De Carteret.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1

De Carteret and a female friend walked from Weighbridge Square into Hope Street.  They were followed by a man, O’Brien.  O’Brien attacked De Carteret by delivering a heavy barge or blow from behind, knocking De Carteret forward off balance.  There was a struggle between the two men.  O’Brien was knocked to the ground.  De Carteret kicked O’Brien to the face.  This appeared to render O’Brien unconscious as he did not react to any of the blows that followed.  De Carteret then proceeded to repeatedly punch, kick and stamp O’Brien to the head and face.  He went on to use his shoe to deliver forceful downward blows to O’Brien’s head.  De Carteret’s female friend attempted to push him away from O’Brien a number of times unsuccessfully.  This was all captured on a private CCTV camera.  De Carteret was arrested the next day.  When interviewed he initially made no comment.  He then went on to say that what he had done was disgusting.  He stated that he had no recollection of the assault.  De Carteret then changed his approach and denied that it was him on the CCTV.

O’Brien suffered severe injuries.  His jaw was broken in two places.  He had to have surgery to fit two metal plates in order to keep his jaw in place.  Further surgery is needed.

Details of Mitigation:

In terms of mitigation De Carteret had his comparatively early guilty plea and residual credit for youth.  He did not have the benefit of good character.  He had expressed deep remorse and regret for his actions demonstrated in a letter to the Court and to the victim.  A Psychologist Report was made available.  It confirmed that De Carteret did have behaviour patterns commonly associated with compulsive personalities.

The defence placed great importance on De Carteret’s mother’s illness and his care for her.  The defence said that this was a commendable position to take at such a young age.  It was contended by the defence that De Carteret should be allowed to continue as his mother’s full time carer with the help of various organisations and family members.

The defence accepted that the Court may feel that their hands were tied after viewing the CCTV but emphasised on De Carteret’s overwhelming responsibility for his mother.  The defence suggested a lengthy Community Service Order coupled with a Probation Order, stating that custody would not serve to address the issues behind the offending.  The defence concluded by saying that De Carteret was a young and caring individual who had taken on great responsibility.

Previous Convictions:

Four convictions for four offences including grave and criminal assault.  Common assault and breaching both a Community Service Order and a Probation Order.  Antecedents for causing a breach of the peace, causing a breach of the peace by fighting, resisting police arrest and for various minor motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Exclusion Order sought for 3 months to run from day of release from prison.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant is to be sentenced for a serious grave and criminal assault to which he pleaded guilty.  The victim remained in hospital for four days with severe injuries.  There was substantial provocation.  However, a sustained and vicious attack followed.  It was a punishment beating with serious results.  De Carteret has previous convictions for violence.  Self intoxication and the taking of the valium are aggravating features.  His guilty plea; expression of remorse and empathy and his relative youth are all mitigation available to him.  The Harrison factors have been taken into consideration.  Drunken violent actions of this kind are unacceptable on the streets of St Helier.  The impact on the victim is considerable.  Metal plates have been fitted to his jaw and further surgery is required.  The Court said the authorities should adopt a zero tolerance approach to drunken violence.  The Crown Advocate had submitted that sentences for these offences was on the low side. 

The CCTV shows that De Carteret was completely out of control.  O’Brien could have been killed and it is fortunate for De Carteret that he was not.  The Court has taken into account all of the circumstances and the available mitigation but agreed that the Crown’s conclusions were correct.

The Court strongly advised De Carteret to take heed of the advice given in the background reports.

Conclusions granted.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. P. Gleeson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for a serious grave and criminal assault as a result of which the victim was detained in hospital for four days; he suffered two fractures of the jaw and multiple cuts and bruises to the head, neck and shoulders. 

2.        There had been considerable provocation in the sense that the victim attacked the defendant by knocking or punching him from behind with some force.  The defendant recovered from the blow and punched the victim to the ground apparently rendering him unconscious.  A sustained and vicious attack then followed in which the defendant punched, kicked and stamped on the head of the unconscious victim on many occasions.  It was a punishment beating with grievous results.

3.        De Carteret has previous convictions for grave and criminal assault in 2002 and assault in 2004 for both of which he received non-custodial sentences.  He was drunk and had taken valium at the material time, which are aggravating features of the offence.

4.        In mitigation he has pleaded guilty to the Indictment and he has expressed remorse and empathy for the victim.  He is still a relatively young man.  The Crown Advocate has helpfully identified for us the relevant factors appearing from the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046 and we have taken all those into consideration. 

5.        The Court has said on many occasions that drunken street violence of this kind is completely unacceptable and must be punished by custodial sentences other than in exceptional circumstances.  The impact upon this victim has been considerable; he will have to live with metal plates in his jaw and he requires further surgery.

6.        The Crown Advocate has invited the Court to send out a strong message to those who engage in drink or drug-induced brutality of this kind that stern punishment will ensue.  We agree that that message should indeed go out.  It is high time, in the view of this Court, that the authorities adopted a zero tolerance approach, not only to violence in the streets of St Helier, but also to the public drunkenness which invariably precedes and causes it.

7.        De Carteret, the CCTV footage which the Court has viewed and which you have seen makes it clear that you were completely out of control that evening.  You could have killed your victim and it is very fortunate that you did not do so.  We have read all the reports carefully and the references which are placed before us and we have noted all the good points about your character and taken them into account.  We strongly advise you for your own good to take advantage of the help and advice which will be available to you in the prison.  In the meantime we must punish you for this offence.  We consider that the Crown Advocate has taken full account of all the mitigation. 

8.        The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and we make a 3 months’ exclusion order from licensed premises upon your release from custody.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.

Gill-v-AG 1999/160.

Attorney General’s Ref. No 59 of 1996 (Grainger) [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 250.