Inferior Number Sentencing - assault - grave and criminal assault
[2023]JRC155
Royal Court
(Samedi)
22 August 2023
Before :
|
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Le
Cornu and Ramsden
|
The Attorney General
-v-
RR
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
1 count of:
|
Common assault (Count 1).
|
4 counts of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Counts 2 to 5).
|
Age: 15.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1
On 25 January 2023, Master X (aged
15) was outside McDonalds with friends when he was approached by the Defendant
(then aged 14), who looked angry.
The pair were known to each other and Master X suspected that something
would happen, so turned to face the opposite direction. The Defendant punched Master X to the
back of the head, side of the face and his mouth, causing his lip to split,
before he walked away and said, “wait till I see you again, away from the
cameras”. Master X did not retaliate. The Defendant stated to his Probation
Officer that he had heard Master X had supplied his younger sister with alcohol
and wanted retribution.
Count 2
On 28 January 2023, Master Y (aged
17) was outside Liberation Bus Station, waiting to get the bus home. He was approached by the Defendant (then
aged 14), who asked “are you Master Y?” to which he
responded “yes”.
The Defendant then dragged Master Y away from the bus and said “get
out of the CCTV” before asking him why he had assaulted his younger
brother. Master Y responded that he
didn’t know who the Defendant’s younger brother was. The Defendant then punched Master Y to
the eye, causing him to fall to the ground and his nose to bleed. Whilst on the ground, the Defendant
kicked him to the shoulder. The
Defendant was told that he had the wrong person, before he had punched Master
Y, but he still punched and kicked him.
Footage was found on the Defendant’s phone of the assault. Master Y had poor vision in his left eye
and the doctor noted that he may not have seen the fist coming towards him and
been able to protect himself.
Count 3
On 26 March 2023, Master Z (aged 14)
was outside McDonalds when he was approached by the Defendant (now aged 15) and
told to go with him. The Defendant
was with three others, and they were all wearing balaclavas or had hoods
up. Master Z was taken to an
underground entrance to a nearby property.
The Defendant punched Master Z to the face 20 to 30 times. The Defendant tried to take Master Z to
the ground, but he was unable to do so.
The Defendant also tried to kick Master Z to the rib area, but Master Z
put his arm in the way. Master Z
sustained a swollen and bloodied nose, swollen knuckles and bruising to his
eyes. The Defendant stated to his
Probation Officer that he believed Master Z had assaulted his younger sister
and that he gave Master Z the choice between apologising or receiving a
beating.
Count 4
On 10 April 2023, Master X (also the
victim of Count 1) was walking in Parade Park when he was told by two girls
known to him “to go to the stairs”. Master X then saw the
Defendant and three friends. Master
X was then punched to the back of the head, causing him to fall to the ground. He got up and ran away but the Defendant
grabbed the back of his hood, threw him against the wall, where he hit his
head, and then fell to the floor again. Master X was kicked to the back of the
head, face, torso, arms and legs. He
pretended to be unconscious, so the kicking would stop. Due to the force and number of kicks,
Master X thought that multiple people were kicking him, but it was just the
Defendant. The Defendant told his
friends to video the assault. Footage
was circulated on social media. Master
X sustained bruising and abrasions.
Count 5
On 10 April 2023, approximately 70
minutes after the assault on Master X, the Defendant was with a group including
his siter in Bath Street. As the group passed a male (aged 78), the sister
knocked his hat off. The male swore at her, and the Defendant confronted him. The Defendant was sentenced on his basis
of plea, which was that the male had punched him once to the jaw, without force
or injury. The Defendant then punched the male, knocking him unconscious. The male fell to the ground and sustained
serious facial injuries (massive periorbital bruising and a deep laceration).
The Defendant walked away but called an ambulance a few minutes later.
The Defendant was assessed as being
at very high risk of reconviction and as unsuitable for probation or community
service.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth, guilty pleas, positive
steps taken whilst on remand.
Defence counsel urged the Court
to impose community service, or in the alternative, submitted that the Court
had the power to impose a probation order on some offences and youth detention
on others. The Crown submitted that
the wording of the 1937 Loi did not allow for this.
Previous Convictions:
Previous convictions for six
assaults, four of which were grave and criminal assaults. He also had convictions for public order
offences, drug offences and dishonesty offences.
Conclusions:
The Crown submitted that Art 5(3)
applied and despite the Defendant’s age, only a custodial sentence was
suitable.
Count 1:
|
4 months’ youth detention
|
Count 2:
|
9 months’ youth detention, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
9 months’ youth detention, concurrent.
|
Count 4:
|
18 months’ youth detention,
concurrent.
|
Count 5:
|
18 months’ youth detention,
concurrent.
|
Total: 18 months’ youth detention.
Breach of Probation Order –
order to be revoked, no separate penalty.
Restraining orders sought
preventing future contact with the victims of Counts 2, 3 and 5 for two years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1:
|
4 months’ youth detention
|
Count 2:
|
9 months’ youth detention, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
9 months’ youth detention, concurrent.
|
Count 4:
|
15 months’ youth detention,
concurrent.
|
Count 5:
|
15 months’ youth detention,
concurrent.
|
Total: 15 months’ youth detention.
Breach of Probation Order –
order to be revoked, no separate penalty.
Restraining orders granted
preventing future contact with the victims of Counts 2, 3 and 5 for two years.
The Court noted that
the Crown’s conclusions were correct but reduced the sentence to reflect
positive signs and a gesture to the Defendant that the Court hope he will
change his life and behave in a more pro-social way.
Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1.
Because of
the complexities of this matter, some of which have arisen during the course of
submissions before us we will give full reasons on a later occasion.
2.
In general
terms however, we have seen on the one hand the most appalling and unprovoked
violence on the streets of St Helier perpetrated by the accused in this case
and we are satisfied that Article 5(3) of the Criminal Justice (Young
Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 applies and that this matter cannot be dealt
with other than by a custodial sentence.
3.
We are
alive however, to what has been said to us by Defence counsel and the hints,
and we put them no more strongly than that to a possible change in direction to
the unhappy trajectory that has characterised this accused life to date. We note for example that he phoned the
ambulance after the assault on the victim of Count 5 and we note what has been
said about his engagement with the psychologist who has worked with him.
4.
In our
view, however, the sentences moved for by the Crown are entirely correct as to
proposed duration and we are therefore going largely to follow them but we will
reduce the conclusions to a modest extent to reflect what we take to be the
positive signs and as a gesture to this Defendant that we hope that he will
change his life and behave in a more pro social way. He will, we hope, ask the Probation
Service as soon as he is able to do so for help and for support and we have
little doubt that if asked sincerely that support will be forthcoming.
5.
In
connection with Count 1, the assault on Master X, 4 months youth
detention. Count 2, grave and
criminal assault on Master Y, 9 months’ youth detention, concurrent. Count 3, grave and criminal assault on
Master Z, 9 months’ youth detention, concurrent. Count 4, grave and criminal assault on
Master X, 15 months’ youth detention, concurrent. Count 5, grave and criminal assault on
the male victim, 15 months’ youth detention, concurrent. We order that the Probation Order be
revoked with no separate penalty to flow in that regard and this makes a total
of 15 months’ youth detention.
6.
We also
make the restraining orders in the terms sought before us for a period of 2
years.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)
(Jersey) Law 2014.
AG
v Goncalves [2022] JRC 097
AG
v Y [2022] JRC 002
AG
v Cameron [2008] JLR Note 44
AG
v Mendonca [2006] JRC 066
Harrison
v AG [2004] JLR 111
AG
v Nolan [2002] JLR Note 31
AG
v Santos [2023] JRC 126