[2011]JRC006
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
14th January 2011
|
Before :
|
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Clapham and Liddiard.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Simon Paul Furzer
Connor Tyson Joel Hansford
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Simon Paul Furzer
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
|
Age: 21.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Furzer and Hansford were in Broad Street at
around 3:20am on 28th August, 2010. They had been drinking heavily
throughout the evening. Following a
verbal altercation with the victim the two defendants assaulted him. All three men threw punches at each
other. Furzer swung the victim to
the ground and pinned him down. He
repeatedly punched him to the face.
Hansford kicked and stamped on the victim’s head (Count 1). They were arrested at the scene.
Hansford resisted arrest (Count
2). He tried to move forward
causing both he and the officer to fall to the ground. The officer suffered a cut to his right
elbow. This was captured on CCTV
footage. There were two witnesses
who both had a close-up view of the events.
The victim did not suffer serious
physical injuries. He suffered
extensive bruising, swelling and abrasions around both eyes and to the
forehead, and to the back of the head.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth; guilty plea; remorse; good
references and good employment.
Previous Convictions:
Malicious damage; minor driving
offence; a public disorder offence.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
9 months’ imprisonment.
|
Exclusion Order sought for a
period of 6 months against entering any premises holding a licence of any
category under the Licensing (Jersey) Law
1974.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court has found
this an extremely difficult case.
It was an attack of two men against one, due to drinking. Alcohol is not a mitigating factor, it
makes the offence worse. The Court
has said many times that drunken violence deserves a custodial sentence. Both defendants are treated as Young Offenders
by Law as Furzer was 20 at the time of the offence and Hansford is 20. It is possible to avoid a custodial
sentence. Young people make
mistakes and their first mistakes were to drink too much. They both put their jobs and careers at
risk. Nevertheless, the Court still
considers it important to punish serious offences accordingly. Hansford is worse, he joined in to make
the assault two against one. He
also kicked and stamped the victim in the head.
|
Count 1:
|
180 hours’ Community Service Order or
12 months’ imprisonment in default.
|
Exclusion Order made
for a period of 12 months from any licensed premises except premises with a 6th
category licence which also sell food.
Conner Tyson Joel Hansford
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Violently resisting a police officer in the
execution of his duty (Count 2).
|
Age: 20.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Furzer above.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth; guilty plea; remorse; good
references and good employment.
Previous Convictions:
Drug offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
12 months’ youth detention.
|
|
Count 2:
|
1 month’s youth detention,
consecutive.
|
Total: 13 months’ youth detention.
Exclusion Order sought for a
period of 6 months against entering any premises holding a licence of any
category under the Licensing (Jersey) Law
1974.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court has found
this an extremely difficult case.
It was an attack of two men against one, due to drinking. Alcohol is not a mitigating factor, it
makes the offence worse. The Court
has said many times that drunken violence deserves a custodial sentence. Both defendants are treated as Young
Offenders by Law as Furzer was 20 at the time of the offence and Hansford is
20. It is possible to avoid a
custodial sentence. Young people
make mistakes and their first mistakes were to drink too much. They both put their jobs and careers at
risk. Nevertheless, the Court still
considers it important to punish serious offences accordingly. Hansford is worse, he joined in to make
the assault two against one. He
also kicked and stamped the victim in the head.
|
Count 1:
|
215 hours’ Community Service Order or
15 months’ youth detention in default.
|
|
Count 2:
|
50 hours’ Community Service Order or 1
month’s youth detention in default, concurrent.
|
Total: 215 hours’ Community Service Order
or 15 months’ youth detention in default.
Exclusion Order made
for a period of 12 months from any licensed premises except premises with a 6th
category licence which also sell food.
S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. R. Baglin for Furzer
Advocate E. J. Le Guillou for Hansford.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
Mr Furzer,
you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains one count of grave
and criminal assault. Mr Hansford,
you are here to be sentenced for grave and criminal assault and for resisting
arrest by the police.
2.
The Court
has found this to be an extremely difficult case which is obvious from the time
that we have spent outside considering what is the right sentence for you. We have had the opportunity of watching
the CCTV footage and there is absolutely no doubt that the offence which you
committed, the grave and criminal assault, was a cowardly attack by two of you
on a single person. It was
undoubtedly the result of drinking too much and it has been said by this Court
many times that the excessive consumption of alcohol is not a mitigating factor. It does not make it better, it makes the
offence worse. It is not surprising
that that is so because we are told by the health authorities regularly that
the consumption of alcohol in this Island is
excessive and what it leads to is a lack of ability to exercise self-control
and self-discipline, or it can do, and that is exactly what has happened here.
3.
The Court
has also said many times that for drunken violence on the streets of St Helier at night, the right sentence is a sentence of
custody. In the case of both of
you, we treat you as being of good character, despite the previous convictions
that you have. You have both
expressed your remorse for what you did.
Some of the comments made by your counsel may not have been consistent
with that remorse and I hope very much that you do feel the remorse that you
have expressed, because you should feel sorry for behaving in the way that you
have.
4.
We treat
you both as though the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey)
Law 1994 applied to you. Mr
Hansford, in your case it does, because you are 20. Mr Furzer, you were 20 at the time of the
offence and so we treat you in that way now. Article 4 of that law says that we
should not pass a custodial sentence unless we consider that there is no other
method of dealing with you appropriately.
We have considered this very anxiously and the nature of the CCTV
footage which we have seen and, exceptionally, we have reached the view that in
the light of the particular footage that we have seen, it is possible with you
to avoid a custodial sentence. The
law is there because it requires the Court to recognise that a young
person’s judgement is sometimes immature and a young person is likely to
make a mistake, and let there be no doubt about it, on this occasion you made
the first serious mistake by drinking too much. And the consequences of making mistakes
can be very serious; in both of your cases the consequences of this mistake
could easily have been a custodial sentence which would put your jobs and your
future career at risk. By a whisker
you are going to avoid that.
5.
The Court
considers that it is important that there is a serious element of punishment
for the offence that you have committed.
6.
Accordingly
we are going to sentence you Mr Furzer, to 180 hours’ community
service. The sentence which would
have been imposed in lieu would be 12 months’ imprisonment. In addition there will be an Exclusion
Order. You are not to go into any
licensed premises for a period of 12 months; the exception only will be 6th
category licenses, which sell food.
It means that you cannot go to a public house and you cannot go to a
restaurant which has a licence, for 12 months. That is a serious element of punishment
and you are being punished for the offence that you have committed.
7.
Mr
Hansford, the offending which you have committed is worse than that of Mr
Furzer, it is worse for two reasons.
First of all you joined in so it was two against one, and secondly it is
worse because you kicked and then subsequently, quite deliberately, stamped on
the head of the victim. We are
going to sentence you to 215 hours’ community service or, in lieu, it
would have been 15 months’ youth detention and the same 12 months
Exclusion Order. In relation to the
offence of resisting the officer in the execution of his duty, we are going to
sentence you to 50 hours’ community service or 1 month’s youth
detention, concurrent, so that makes a total of 215 hours’ community
service.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Harrison-v-AG
[2004] JCA 046.
Licensed Premises (Exclusion of
certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998.
AG-v-Baltrusaitis
& Tecuceanu [2010] JRC
194.
AG-v-Q
R and Baptista [2010] JRC 227.