Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/82

2 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th April, 2001

 

Before:  M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Quérée and Bullen

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert William Yeaman

 

 

1 count of:   causing a breach of the peace (count 2).

 

[On 27^th March, 2001, the defendant was acquitted, at a Criminal Assize, of 1 count of grave and criminal assault (count 1)].

 

Age:    37.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The defendant had been indicted in respect of two counts: the first being an allegation of grave and criminal assault and the second an allegation of breach of the peace; however, he was acquitted of the more serious charge by an assize jury.  The defendant had pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.  Following an afternoon of drinking in a public house, the defendant and his friend became involved in an argument with other people in the bar which eventually spilled out into the street.  A scuffle ensued and the defendant admitted to throwing several punches.  The police were called and he was arrested.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The defendant had entered a guilty plea at an early stage.  His friend had been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court and bound over for 12 months; good references and work record; no serious criminal record.

 

Conclusions:

 

£50 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Conclusions granted.  Defence counsel had sought to persuade the Court to impose a 12 months binding over order as that was the sentence imposed on his friend by the Magistrate's Court.  The Court took the opportunity to state that where offences of this nature occur as the result of overindulgence in alcohol, it is wrong in principle to deal with these offences by way of a binding over order and a fine would be more appropriate.  The Court considered that the fine moved for by the Crown was too low but in deference to the mitigation and the way in which the accused's friend had been treated in the lower court, the Court would grant the conclusions.

 

 

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate N. Benest for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This was a not uncommon incident in the streets of St. Helier where people fuelled with alcohol get involved in an argument which then turns into jostling with punches being thrown.

 

2.            The defendant's friend received a binding over order from the Magistrate's Court.  Clearly we do not know the full circumstances of the mitigation available but we wish to comment as a matter of general principle that, where people can afford to go drinking in public houses, get into disputes of this nature and commit public order offences, a binding over order is, in our judgment, not usually an appropriate way of dealing with the matter.  It should be dealt with by way of a fine if it is of that level of seriousness where neither probation, a custodial sentence, nor community service is required.  It is the Court's opinion that any person who commits a public order offence through drinking should usually be made to suffer by paying a financial penalty; a binding over order is too lenient.

 

3.            Furthermore, we would add that, in general terms, the fine moved for by the Crown is, in our judgment, too low.  Again, having regard to a defendant's means, we think that a fine of a greater level than £50 is called for in respect of these sort of offences.  However, we bear in mind in this particular case that the defendant's friend did receive only a binding over order; that this case has been hanging over the accused for some time; and that he admitted the offence immediately.  We do not feel able simply to impose a binding over order for the reason we have already mentioned, but we will adopt the conclusions of the Crown.  Therefore, Yeaman, you are fined the sum of £50 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment and we must emphasise once again that had it not been for the fact that your friend was dealt with too leniently in the Magistrate's Court, the fine would have been higher.

 

 

No Authorities.