Inferior Number Sentencing – grave and criminal assault – malicious damage.

[2015]JRC010

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 January 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Ricardo Jorge Encarnacao Dias

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

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 10^th September, 2014, the defendant and the victim, a colleague, were cleaning gutters and windows at a private house.  The victim criticised the defendant, saying he could not roll a hose correctly.  The defendant then struck the victim once to the head using a window cleaning pole, approximately 4 feet in length and made largely of metal.  The blow caused a 6cm laceration to the victim’s forehead, and the continued movement caused a further laceration to the forehead and another to the forearm.  The first injury required suturing.  The pole also smashed a glass topped garden table belonging to the occupant of the house. 

The defendant was arrested at the scene and was cooperative throughout. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown:

Guilty plea, cooperative with the police (of particular value as the victim did not make a complaint). 

The Defence:

Urged community service and probation; letter of apology to victim; young family.  Willing to comply with suggested psychological treatment.  Momentary loss of control following days of goading from the victim. 

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction, for a grave and criminal assault in 2003 involving a blow to the head of a colleague using a scaffolding pole, causing serious head injuries. 

Conclusions:

Total: 2½ years’ imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 15 months’ imprisonment.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In the course of your employment one of your colleagues in the garden annoyed you and you picked up a heavy weapon and struck him over the head with it.  Fortunately there was no serious injury and he has made no complaint to the police.  It was the second time, however, that you have committed an offence of this kind and the Court has considered carefully the impassioned plea from your counsel that we should impose a non-custodial sentence.  Any assault using a weapon of this kind is treated by these courts as very serious, and the fact that it is the second offence leads us to the view that we have to impose a custodial sentence upon you.  We think that custody is right in principle, given the fact that it is a second offence and given the fact that a heavy weapon was used, and we have felt the weight of the weapon ourselves. 

2.        In many respects it is a slightly odd offence.  It is as though you have completely lost your temper and yet maintained a fairly clinical self-control immediately afterwards, and it is clear from the psychological report which is before us, that you have some issues which really do need to be addressed and we hope you realise that.  It is possible for you to address those issues in prison and we urge you to take advantage of the psychological assistance you can get in the prison when you serve the sentence we are about to impose. 

3.        We have taken into account that you have been fully cooperative and that you pleaded guilty.  We think that you are genuinely remorseful; we noted that your letter of apology to the victim was a long time before the court hearing, that you have a good work ethic and that you are a good family man.  We take all those things into account and we think the Crown’s conclusions are too long. 

4.        We are going to sentence you to a term of 15 months’ imprisonment for this offence and we urge you to take the time in prison to address the psychological issues which need to be addressed because this type of behaviour is worrying and you need to learn how to control yourself.  Count 2 is 1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent, so that makes a total of 15 months’ imprisonment. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462.

AG v Veloso [2014] JRC 162B.

AG v Dias [2003] JRC 189.