Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/176

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Perry John Le Flock

 

1 count of:	breach of the peace (count 3);
1 count of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:  count 4: cannabis resin.

 

[On 16^th July, 2001, the Crown abandoned the prosecution in respect of counts 1 and 2].

 

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment;
Count 4:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:	2 weeks' imprisonment;
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, consecutive.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court thinks it important to make it clear upon what basis it is proceeding to pass sentence.  This accused was originally charged with two counts of grave and criminal assault; a charge of acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace; and a charge of possession of a small quantity of cannabis resin.

2.        For reasons which are not material the prosecution has now abandoned the two charges of grave and criminal assault and Le Flock falls to be sentenced for having acted in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace and for possessing a small quantity of cannabis resin.

3.        The factual matrix upon which the prosecution presented the case to us was that Le Flock took it upon himself to counsel two young men who were one evening in the house which he was sharing with another man.  He refused his companion's request to ask the two young men to leave.  That led to his companion's brother, Justin Vincent, and his brother-in-law, Mr. Le Lievre, being asked to come to the premises to assist in the removal of the two young men.  When Justin Vincent arrived at the house, the accused thrust a knife towards his face.  That action formed the basis of one of the charges of grave and criminal assault which has been abandoned.

4.        According to the prosecution witnesses there then followed an altercation in the course of which the accused chased both Justin Vincent and Le Lievre down the road threatening to stab them.

5.        The accused states that he did not have a knife in his possession when he followed the two men down Common Lane shouting at them.  He accepts that there was the thrusting of the knife while he was standing in the doorway of the house, but it is said on his behalf that he left the knife in the house when he followed the two men down the road.

6.        The Court has asked itself whether the circumstances are such that it ought to adjourn for the purposes of a 'Newton' hearing in order to resolve this fundamental conflict of evidence.  Having regard to all the circumstances the Court does not propose to do so.  The Court proposes to sentence the accused on the basis of his account of what happened.  We place no reliance at all upon the thrusting of the knife towards Justin Vincent because the charge of grave and criminal assault upon Vincent has been abandoned by the prosecution.  What we are sentencing Le Flock for, therefore, is the causing of a breach of the public peace by running in a hostile way down a public road issuing threats directed at two men whose presence he did not welcome.

7.        In the light of that background the Court considers that the conclusions of the learned Crown Advocate are too high.  The sentence of the Court, Le Flock, is that on count 3, you are sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment; on count 4, the possession of cannabis resin, you are sentenced to 7 days' imprisonment consecutive making a total of 21 days' imprisonment.

 

 

Authorities

AG-v-Le Flock (31^st January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.