[2011]JRC107
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
1st June 2011
Before :
|
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats
Le Cornu, Morgan, Fisher, Nicolle, Crill and Le Brocq.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Paul Allan Slater
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court
to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 11th March, 2011,
following a guilty plea to the following charges:
1 count of:
|
Obstructing a police officer (Count 1).
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).
|
Age: 23.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1
In November 2010, police officers
were outside Pure nightclub carrying out an arrest. During the arrest the defendant
persistently intervened and attempted to prevent the police officers from
placing the man into the police van.
The defendant was instructed to leave but refused and became even more
volatile. He was arrested for
refusing to obey lawful orders.
Count 2
During December 2010 the defendant,
the victim and a mutual friend (who all share a flat together) were out
drinking. The defendant’s ex
girlfriend, the sister of the mutual friend, was also there. The victim went home just after midnight with the defendant’s ex
girlfriend returning there shortly afterwards. Shortly afterwards the defendant sent
the victim a text message warning him to stay away from his ex girlfriend as he
thought they had started a relationship together.
Shortly afterwards the ex girlfriend
saw the defendant climbing through a window to enter the flat. The defendant went into the living room
where the victim was on the sofa bed, picked up a “Rambo-style”
hunting knife that belonged to the mutual friend, and “went” at the
victim as he lay on the sofa bed.
The victim tried to protect himself
and lifted his arms and legs up in defence whilst the defendant stabbed the
knife through the duvet into the victim’s foot. The defendant was eventually disarmed by
the ex girlfriend and the victim attended Accident and Emergency. The victim suffered a four centimetre
laceration on the top of his right foot and the tibialis anterior tendon had
been cut. The defendant was
subsequently arrested however the victim refused to make a formal
complaint.
Details of Mitigation:
The defendant pleaded guilty, was
remorseful and benefited from residual youth. This was more of a crime of passion; the
knife did not belong to the defendant who had used it spontaneously. No previous convictions for
violence. Defendant doing well in
prison on various courses and had the support of his family who had flown from England to
attend sentencing.
Previous Convictions:
Two previous convictions, both of
which were recorded in Preston earlier in 2010
(possession of cannabis with intent to supply, and breach of the suspended
sentence ordered for the drugs offence).
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
8 years starting point. 4 years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4 years’ imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the
knife sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court noted the
cases on varied on starting points for grave and criminal assault however had
gleaned a starting point of between 6-8 years. Reiterated AG-v-Lawlor and knife
crime would attract a severe sentence.
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
3 years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 3 years’ imprisonment.
Forfeiture and
destruction of the knife ordered.
Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. R. Baglin for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1.
After a
day’s drinking the defendant returned to his flat and went to the living
room where the victim, with whom he shared the flat, was on the sofa bed under
a duvet. Jealous that the victim
had commenced a relationship with his former girlfriend, who was also present
in the flat, the defendant picked up a Rambo-style hunting knife and went at
the victim on the sofa. The victim
attempted to defend himself and lifted his arms and legs in defence. Whilst doing this the defendant stabbed
through the duvet into the victim’s foot. On examination at the Accident and
Emergency Department, the victim had a four centimetre laceration at the top of
his right foot; the tibialis anterior tendon had been cut. The victim failed to follow up with
hospital appointments and has refused to co-operate with the police from that
time. To date he has refused to
make a formal complaint.
2.
On
interview the defendant declined to answer all questions that were put to
him. In addition to this grave and
criminal assault the defendant also stands to be sentenced for obstructing a
police officer on an earlier occasion.
The defendant is assessed at a medium risk of re-offending; he has no
previous convictions for violence but there is a warrant out for his arrest in
England for his failing to complete community service in that
jurisdiction.
3.
The Crown
have drawn our attention to the case of AG-v-Lawlor [2009] JRC 150 where the Bailiff said this at paragraph
6:-
“We have taken note of the
various cases to which we referred and to the extract from Whelan on Aspects
of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey and we also noted the cases
of AG-v-Farnon [2009] JRC
127. But each case turns on its own
facts and some of the cases in Whelan are now quite old. The courts in England recently have made it clear
that courts must respond to changing situations and to the risk of increasing
knife violence. We are fortunate in
Jersey so far that we are not facing the sort
of problems which many areas of England
are facing in relation to knives but the Court takes a very serious view of any
assault with a knife. The gravity
of injury when a knife is used is so often a matter of chance and there is
always a risk of really serious injury if not worse. The Court is determined to send out a
message that those who resort to attacks with a knife will face severe
sentences.
4.
Accordingly
the Crown invites us to make a firm deterrent sentence seeking a starting point
of 8 years’ imprisonment and a sentence, after mitigation, of 4 years
with a concurrent sentence for the obstruction.
5.
The Crown
has referred us to the well known criteria in Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR
111. The Crown notes that prior to
returning home the defendant sent the victim a text warning him to stay away
from his former girlfriend, but because of the level of intoxication, the Crown
is prepared to accept, as do we, that there was no real pre-meditation. However the Crown point out that of course intoxication
is an aggravating factor.
6.
There is a
lack of consistency on the part of the Courts in the use of starting points in
cases involving assaults generally, notwithstanding the guidance given in the
case of Harrison-v-AG. We have
been referred to a number of cases by both counsel who agree that for assaults
involving a knife, a band of between 6 and 8 years can be gleaned. The Crown have put this case at the
upper end of the band, but in our view there are two factors which should place
the case at the lower end of this band; firstly the accepted lack of
premeditation. The defendant found
his recently former girlfriend in the flat with the victim and he used the
knife, belonging to the girlfriend’s brother, spontaneously. Secondly, the attack was not sustained;
he was in fact, as we understand it, disarmed by his former girlfriend. We therefore think that a starting point
of around 6 years is correct on the facts of this case.
7.
In terms
of mitigation we have taken into account the plea of guilty; the Crown say that
there was a lack of cooperation but we note that this was as a result of legal
advice given to the defendant at the time.
He has no previous convictions for violence and is still relatively
young at the age of 22; at least he was 22 at the time that the offences were
committed. We are very encouraged
by the very positive attitude you have taken to your time in prison and we wish
to encourage you in that and we also note the support of your family who have
come over here to be in Court today.
We have considered carefully everything said by your counsel most ably
in mitigation. We wish to reiterate
however what the Bailiff said in the case of AG-v-Lawlor “that those who resort to attacks with a
knife will face severe sentences” and we would like to repeat that
message.
8.
You are
sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on Count 2 and you are sentenced to 2
weeks’ imprisonment on Count 1, concurrent, which makes a total sentence
of 3 years’ imprisonment.
9.
We order
the forfeiture and destruction of the knife.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.
AG-v-Lawlor
[2009] JRC 150.
Harrison-v-AG
[2004] JLR 111.
AG-v-Hare
[2008] JRC 168.
AG-v-Livingstone
[2010] JRC 028.