Superior Number Sentencing - assault - grave and criminal assault -
attempting to pervert the course of justice
[2020]JRC201
Royal Court
(Samedi)
30 September 2020
|
Before :
|
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Blampied, Ronge and Pitman
|
The Attorney General
-v-
John Sebastian Nicolle
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the
Inferior Number on 17th July, 2020, following guilty pleas to the
following charges:
First Indictment
|
1 count of:
|
Common assault (Count 1)
|
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).
|
Second Indictment
|
1 count of:
|
Attempting to pervert the course of justice
(Count 1).
|
Age: 47
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offences:
First indictment
The defendant and victim 1 had been
in a relationship for three months at the time of the offences. On 12th July, 2019, the
defendant, with three other men, including victim 2 were drinking together at
victim 1’s home. Victim 2
left the flat to go to the shop. A
verbal argument occurred between the defendant and victim 1. The argument became physical. Victim 1 sustained a large bruise and
swelling to her left eye and a bruised knee (Count 1).
When victim 2 returned to the
address, he noticed swelling to victim 1’s eye. He confronted the defendant. The defendant punched him several times
causing him to fall to the floor.
Whilst victim 2 was on the floor, the defendant punched and stamped on
victim 2’s body and head.
Victim 1 attempted to protect victim 2 from the defendant. (Count 2)
Second Indictment
As part of court-imposed bail
conditions, the defendant was told not to contact victim 1. Despite the non-contact condition, the defendant
contacted the victim from HMP La Moye via telephone after putting her number
down under a pseudonym. The police
obtained 250 records of telephone calls with 40 considered relevant to the
non-contact request. The victim
handed over several letters to the police from the defendant. The calls and the letters showed the defendant
made an attempt to cause the victim to change her account.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
30 previous convictions for 81
offences with 8 previous convictions for assault and common assault. Several of which were incidences of
domestic violence.
Conclusions
First Indictment:
|
Count 1:
|
6 months imprisonment
|
|
Count 2:
|
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive
|
Second Indictment:
|
Count 1:
|
12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive
|
Total: 4 years’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
First Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
12 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive
|
Second Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
12 months’ imprisonment.
|
Total: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
R. C. P. Pedley Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
John
Nicolle you are 48 years old, most men of your age have put their offending
well behind them, even if they have had a difficult start in life which you
undoubtedly did. You are before the
Royal Court again, having been sentenced to 22 months imprisonment for two offences
for violence; grave and criminal assault and common assault in July 2018. Those were assaults committed upon a
woman with whom you were in a relationship at the time and you were released
from prison having served those sentences in January of last year.
2.
In respect
of the two counts on the First Indictment, common assault and grave and criminal
assault, those were unprovoked assaults committed by you when you were in drink
on 12th July of last year, and the victims of those assaults were
your then girlfriend, victim 1, who was then aged 52, and someone you had not
met until that night, victim 2, who was aged 28.
3.
As to
Count 1, common assault, victim 1 had been your partner for some time,
approximately 3 months. The assault
took place in her apartment where she was entitled to feel safe, in the
presence of others. At about 9pm,
having already verbally abused victim 1 you punched her in the face causing her
to fall, resulting in her sustaining a large bruise and swelling to her left
eye and a bruised knee. One of the
people at the flat was so concerned that he telephoned the police straight away
and said that you had “battered
your girlfriend”.
4.
The victim
at Count 2, who did not witness the assault, remonstrated with you because of
your conduct and your response was to attack him, punching him and stamping on
his head four to six times. Such
was the savagery of the assault that one the persons in the flat recorded part
of the assault on his mobile phone, and we have seen the footage of you
stamping on victim 2 at a time when he could have offered you no
resistance. We reject the assertion
that he provoked you in any way by saying anything to you before you assaulted
him, but even if he had done it would have been no mitigation in terms of what
you did.
5.
We have
seen the footage of your girlfriend on the floor, clearly terrified, trying to
protect your prone victim from further assault. When she tried to stop you you said “I am a hard cunt”. You showed no remorse when the police
arrived and in the opinion of the Court this was a brutal assault. Victim 2 needed hospital treatment, was
left with cuts, a grossly swollen left eye and many other injuries including a
fractured cheekbone.
6.
You have
to understand that it is only a matter of good fortune that victim 2’s
injuries were not much worse. He
was already vulnerable owing to a previous head injury, of which you were
unaware, and accordingly even though he discharged himself from hospital the
next day after the incident, he returned later the same morning having suffered
a seizure. In interview, you admitted
the offences but did not appear to show any remorse - suggesting that victim 2
attacked you, which was not true, or that you felt threatened by him, which we reject.
7.
Notwithstanding
your subsequent remand in custody, over a substantial period of several months
you attempted to pervert the course of justice, (the Second Indictment), by
attempting to induce victim 1 to withdraw the complaint she had made against
you. You were told to have no
contact with her, but you did. You
made over 250 phone calls, 40 of which amounted to criminal conduct in that
they were part of the attempt to pervert the course of justice. As did two letters which we have
seen. Indeed you carried on
contacting her even after appearing in the Royal Court in February this year and
apologising for breaching the order requiring you to have no contact with her. The contact appears to have had an
effect as victim 1 made a second statement in August of last year, in which she
said that she did not clearly remember the events of the night, including the
assault upon her.
8.
As to the
letters that you wrote to victim 1, it is clear from this correspondence that
you knew you were committing a serious offence at the time. You said the Court might “throw the book at me” for
interfering with and intimidating a witness. You told victim 1 in a letter “you cannot under any circumstances
tell the court or anyone that we’ve had any contact at all no matter
what”, and you even sent her a copy of your defence case statement, adding
“you’ve got to remember you
aint seen or heard anything about anything or I am screwed”
9.
So this
was a serious offence and notwithstanding your ultimate conviction for common
assault, this was an attempt to pervert the course of justice that came near to
success in that you almost succeeded in attaining your objective, preventing
the prosecution of yourself for an offence of domestic violence.
10. You pleaded guilty to Count 2 and perverting
the course of justice counts early but the common assault charge late in the
day after trial dates had been fixed and 6 months after you had been arraigned
on that charge. You even maintained
your not guilty plea for a period after the Crown applied successfully, with
the consent of your advocate, to adduce your previous convictions for offences
of violence against women as bad character evidence.
11. The offence at Count 1 was serious; an assault
on your girlfriend in her own home with no provocation, and the sentence the
Court must impose is substantially aggravated by the fact that this was the
fifth female partner of yours who has been subjected to domestic violence, four
of these cases leading to a conviction.
You are a danger to women who consort with you, and appear to have
little insight into the consequences of your offending. The Court has no doubt that a consecutive
sentence must be imposed in relation to this matter, notwithstanding the
commission of the offence at Count 2 on the same occasion.
12. As the grave and criminal assault on victim 1,
you stamped on the head of a prone unresponsive man in circumstances where
there was little or no provocation, resulting him suffering over 20 injuries. An attempt to pervert the course of
justice is always a serious offence and always absent special circumstances,
will warrant a consecutive sentence.
It is an offence which strikes at the heart of the justice system and as
the Court has repeatedly held including in AG –v- Dominguez [2020]
JRC 010 “the perpetrators of domestic abuse must understand that attempts
to intimidate or persuade their victims not to give evidence or be dealt with
severely by the courts”.
13. We give you credit for your guilty pleas. We note that in view of the video
evidence in relation to Count 2 and the correspondence in relation to the
perverting charge it would have been difficult for you to enter any other
plea. We take into account all the
mitigation that has been placed before us including this morning by your
advocate. We hope that you will
whilst in custody receive some of the therapy that you so badly need and we
note the reference in the reports of the Probation Officer and Dr Briggs to dialectal
behaviour therapy, other therapies not currently available in custody which may
be made available to you by the psychological service and we strongly urge that
efforts are made to make that therapy available to you.
14. These offences are so serious that only a
custodial sentence is warranted and the sentences that we impose are as follows;
Count 1, 12 months’ imprisonment; Count 2, 2 years and 6 months’
imprisonment; Second Indictment, 12 months’ imprisonment all to run
consecutively making a total of 4½ years’ imprisonment.
Authorities
AG
v- Dominguez [2020] JRC 010
Harrison
v AG [2004] JLR 111
AG
v Horn [2010] JRC 104
AG
v Dias [2017] JRC 114
AG
v Nicolle [2018] JRC 139
AG
v Ramos [2020] JRC 074
AG
v Czamecki [2020] JRC 177
Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing (Third
Edition) (extract)