[2011]JRC112

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th June 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

Amy Ann Binnie

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

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 29^th January, 2011, the two victims were walking along Bath Street towards RBSI where they encountered the defendant.  The three were known to each other and all had been drinking, the two victims having just been refused entry to licensed premises.  The defendant had left friends at the Royal Hotel and was walking to get some money while carrying a bottle of Rosé wine.  They initially talked for a short while and one of the victims later admitted that they were ‘winding her up’. 

The defendant punched out at one of them and he stepped backwards.  The defendant then walked away towards Providence Street, followed by the other male and a short time later she is seen to bend down which would seem to be the time that she picked up a piece of glass from the now broken wine bottle to use as a weapon.  One of the men punched the defendant in the face and she falls to the ground and is kicked by him.  A passer-by stopped and shouted “What are you doing?  Why are you fighting with a girl?”  One of the males replied “Look what she has done to my face”.  The defendant got to her feet and began to argue with the two men and was again punched to the ground.  Both men were goading the defendant, saying “Come on, hit us” as they walked backwards.  The defendant said she had a knife and would use it if they hit her again. 

Officers arrived at the scene and found them still arguing with the defendant.  Both men had fresh wounds to their faces.  Neither they nor the defendant would give the officers an account of what had happened and they began to argue once again.  The defendant then fled the scene.  She was found in the toilets of the Viceroy Restaurant standing at the sink cleaning her hands with toilet paper.  They noted that she had blood on her hands.  The defendant was arrested and cautioned.  In response she said “I’ll be honest, I’ll tell you everything in interview”. 

She initially stated that she had been involved in a scuffle with the man and had punched them both, but later admitted that she had used the neck of a broken bottle as a weapon, hitting them both in the face.  She said that she had been very drunk and very angry at their insults and “wanted to show them”.  She could not remember being assaulted. 

Both victims received cuts to their heads which will leave permanent scarring.  Neither victim was willing to co-operate with the police and provide a statement. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; a number of psychological problems, first offence of this magnitude.  Element of provocation from the victims, who could be said to have retaliated to a significant degree.  Supportive family and expresses considerable guilt at the effect her offending has had on them.  Not of good character, but does have the benefit of youth, being 20 at the time of the offending and at sentence. 

Previous Convictions:

Two assaults from 2005 and 2007, other unrelated convictions.  These offences placed her in breach of a Magistrate’s Court Binding-Over Order. 

Conclusions:

Total:  300 hours’ Community service Order plus an 18 month Probation Order. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 18 months from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises sought. 

Binding-Over Order to be discharged. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total:  240 hours’ Community Service Order, plus an 18 month Probation Order. 

Exclusion Order for a period of 12 months from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licensed premises ordered. 

Binding-Over Order to be discharged. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on two counts of grave and criminal assault.  You had been drinking, as had the victims of these two assaults.  Although the evidence is slightly incomplete there is no doubt that at some point you bent down and lashed out at the two victims with a piece of glass from a broken wine bottle.  There also seems to be no doubt that in the course of the events of that evening the victims combined to attack you as well; and the information we have is that the victims were not investigated themselves for their part in the incident.  The Court is troubled by the apparent inequity between the way in which you have been treated and the way in which the victims have been treated and the remarks of the Court in the case of Baltrusaitis and Tecuceanu [2010] JRC 194 which your counsel put before us apply equally in this case.  It seems at any rate surprising that the two men have not been investigated if not charged, but of course we recognise the Court has not heard details from the police or from the Crown in full in relation to that part of the case. 

2.        You were goaded and later attacked.  Nonetheless, offences of this kind in a public place are very serious offences.  The use of a broken bottle can cause very severe injury; the fact that you had been drinking so that you were not in control, aggravates the position, it does not forgive it; it makes the case worse.  Usually, when there is an assault in a public place involving a weapon such as a broken bottle, the Court’s policy results in a custodial sentence.  On the other hand, in your case, you are still only 20 years old and therefore you are to be treated by the Court in accordance with the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. 

3.        We are not satisfied that the offence, or the totality of offending in this case is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  One of the reasons for that is the apparent inequity in treatment.  We are also not satisfied that there is not another way of dealing with you more appropriately in the light of the background and psychological reports that we have seen and so, despite the seriousness of the offence that you have committed, we are going to follow, largely speaking, the conclusions of the Crown and you will be put on 18 months’ probation on each count.  You will also perform 240 hours’ community service on each count; the custodial equivalent of that would be 18 months’ youth detention, they are to be served concurrently, so that makes a total of 240 hours’ community service.  And I must warn you that if you breach your Probation Order or if you do not perform the Community Service Order, you will be brought back to this Court and you are very likely then to face the custodial sentence which an offence of this kind, despite all the other circumstances, would generally merit.  In addition to that we are going to impose a 12 month Exclusion Order.  You are excluded from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises for that period. 

4.        One of the reasons we have chosen 12 months is that it is clear from the background reports that you will be receiving some help on how to develop strategies to cope with drinking, and we think it would be desirable if there is at least a 6 month opportunity for you to show that those strategies are working.  That is why the Court thinks it is appropriate to allow the experts to see the fruits of their support for you over that period and that is why we are only imposing a 12 month Exclusion Order and not an 18 month Exclusion Order.  We also discharge the existing Binding-Over Order from the Magistrate’s Court on 1^st December, 2010. 

5.        It is said that you are not of good character in the legal sense that you have previous convictions, and you do have some previous convictions.  Nonetheless, that sort of life does not have to continue.  You have a lot of support in your life.  The purpose of the sentences which are now being imposed is to give you more support and you should take advantage of them because if you do not then there is a real risk of your coming back here and, on another occasion, certainly for an offence of this kind, you will definitely be looking at custody. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Baltrusaitis and Tecuceanu [2010] JRC 194.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Ferreira [2009] JRC 087.

AG-v-Pereira [2009] JRC 060.

AG-v-Saldana [2009] JRC 032.

AG-v-Golder & Ors [2006] JRC 061.