[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/166 - Little v AG [1998] UR 166 (3 August 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/166.html Cite as: [1998] UR 166

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

Royal Court (Superior Number)

(exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred on it by

Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961)

3 August 1998

Stephen Little

-v-

AG

Appeal against a sentence of 1 year youth detention, imposed by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on 17 April 1998, [1998.075] on a guilty plea to:

1 count of grave and criminal assault

Leave to appeal was granted by the Deputy Bailiff on 1 May 1998

Advocate SE Fitz for the Appellant

Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The appellant is 20 years old and therefore falls within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994. The Court, at first instance, were of the opinion that this assault, which involved a glassing, was so serious that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified. The Court went further in this case and increased the conclusions of the Crown from 9 months to 12 months.

The facts of the case can be briefly explained as follows: the complainant was also aged 20 at the material time and went into a public house where the appellant was present. There was, apparently, some form of altercation between the complainant and another person in the gentlemen’s toilets at some time. The complainant later on met the appellant, who was in the company of friends, on the stairwell and said these words to him: "You’re a cheeky little shit, it’s about time you respected your fucking elders, you dick". The two young men were standing face to face on the stairs, the defendant on the landing and the complainant one step up from the defendant. The defendant, who had been drinking, was holding a glass in his right hand. There was, apparently, another verbal exchange and then the defendant pushed the glass he was holding into the complainant’s forehead, causing a significant wound.

Once he was arrested, however, the complainant showed deep remorse. Two of his statements are these: "It was a few seconds of calm afterwards. He was stood there with blood. I was stood there. I couldn’t believe what I had done and I feel terrible about what’s happened. I’m ashamed. Whats happened causing someone that sort of pain is not in my nature. If there was going to be a fight it would have been a fair one. I can’t really apologise enough for what has happened".

Apparently, according to the Probation Report, there was even a telephone conversation later between the complainant and the appellant where apologies were made again.

Miss Fitz, who has said everything that she possibly can, relies on all these mitigating factors. But we have to say that the offence of glassing would normally lead to a custodial sentence, but in the case of someone who is not yet of full age the Court is bound by the Law to try all in its power to not only reform the juvenile, if that is possible, but to avoid a custodial sentence, again, if that is possible.

Miss Fitz has given us many examples where even more serious offences of assault have occurred but where custody did not inevitably follow. We will not rehearse those cases here because many of them turn on probation reports not before us and some of them must turn on matters to which this Court is not privy.

We have to say that we cannot attempt to explain some of the cases that were cited to us. We will, therefore, limit ourselves to this case and in this case the appellant has no record of violence. He is, as I have said, 20 years old; he has clearly shown deep remorse; he has provided excellent references and it must be said that he was provoked following a misunderstanding of identity because of the earlier incident in which he was not involved. He, apparently, reacted without any premeditation and, again, the glassing occurred in the heat of the moment.

In all the circumstances we feel that the sentence for this offender - and because of his age particularly - was harsh and we have decided to allow the appeal and we are going to substitute the sentence of youth detention with two years probation, with community service to take account of the time spent in custody of 180 hours to be carried out in the first year.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Taylor (29 July 1994) Jersey Unreported

A.G. -v- Howell (5 June 1998) Jersey Unreported

A.G. -v- Ferguson, Graham (8 December 1995) Jersey Unreported

A.G. -v- Skinner, Skinner (12 December 1994) Jersey Unreported

A.G. -v- O’Brien, Gourlay (11 October 1996) Jersey Unreported

A.G. -v- Hunt (24 February 1989) Jersey Unreported

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey": p93

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994: Article 4