Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC030

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th March, 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Philip William Baglin

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded following a change of plea to guilty to count 1 below, entered before the Inferior Number on 1^st November, 2004, and following conviction at a criminal assize on 26^th November, 2004, on a not guilty plea to count 2 below, entered by the Court on the Defendant's behalf, on 10^th September, 2004,.

 

1 count of:	Uttering and attempting to obtain drugs on a forged document (count 1).
1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (count 2).

 

[The Crown did not proceed with count 3 of the indictment.]

 

Age:     36

 

 

Details of Offence:

 

Uttering forged prescription:  previous convictions for dishonesty and possession of drugs.

Grave and criminal assault: knife, slashing, unprovoked, calculated, no remorse.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Uttering: guilty plea, co-operation.

Grave and criminal: one attacker, one blow.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Several for violence and dishonesty since 1988.  Regular offender, also some for drugs.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	4 months' imprisonment.  (6 months' imprisonment starting point).
Count 2:	6 years' imprisonment.  (6 years' starting point).

All concurrent:  TOTAL: 6 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 1:	4 months' imprisonment.  (6 months' imprisonment starting point). 1/3 off for guilty plea.
Count 2:	7 years' imprisonment.  (7 years' starting point). Serious, vicious and unprovoked revenge attack: cold and calculated; no remorse.

All concurrent:  TOTAL: 7 years' imprisonment.

 

 

 

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R.S. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced on 2 counts, namely, one count of uttering a forged document and one count of grave and criminal assault.  Baglin pleaded guilty to the count of uttering a forged document, but not guilty to the grave and criminal assault.  On that count he was convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

2.        The uttering involved the use of a prescription which the defendant had altered for the purpose of getting a supply of diazepam.  Baglin did not deny that offence.  We agree with the Crown Advocate that the appropriate starting point is one of 6 months' imprisonment and for the guilty plea and other mitigation, in relation to this offence, we allow a deduction of one-third and will impose a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment.

3.        The grave and criminal assault is a much more serious matter.  Baglin's explanation was rejected by the jury, and we pass sentence on the basis that this was a vicious and unprovoked attack with a knife, motivated by a desire to revenge himself upon the victim for his refusal to commit perjury on Baglin's behalf. 

4.        The effect upon the victim was serious.  He suffered a grave wound to the side of his face which required 55 stitches to repair, and as a result has been scarred for life in a prominent way.  There is no doubt that Baglin intended to cause this grave injury and to scar his victim. 

5.        The victim has suffered not only physical but also psychological damage.  The Crown suggested that this was a cold and calculated act and that the fact that the victim was lured away from the group was evidence of pre-meditation. 

6.        Defence Counsel submitted that there was no, or at any rate, insufficient evidence from which the Court could infer pre-meditation.  With some hesitation - because, we think, this imagined grievance had been with Baglin from the time when he and Loake were in prison - we accept the submission of Defence Counsel, in relation to the alleged pre-mediation.  We accept accordingly that the aggravating feature of pre-meditation cannot be taken into account.

7.        We have no doubt, however that this was a cold and calculated act intended to cause serious injury.  We have given anxious consideration to the appropriate starting point in this case and have considered very carefully the observations of the Court of Appeal in Mallet -v- A.G.[2000 JLR111].  

8.        We accept, of course, that there are aggravating features in a grave and criminal assault which are not present in this case.  Nonetheless, this was, as we have said, a serious example of a vicious and unprovoked attack with a weapon, committed in a public place, which could have had even more serious consequences. 

9.        There is no remorse on the part of the defendant and Defence Counsel has accepted that there is no mitigation available to the defendant.  He has a bad record and no mitigation is available to him in that respect either. 

10.      In our considered judgment the appropriate starting point is one of 7 years' imprisonment.  There being no mitigation available, that is also the sentence to be imposed.

11.      On Count 1 you will be sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment; on Count 2, to 7 years' imprisonment. We will apply the totality factor and those sentences will be concurrent, making a total of 7 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Whitely (18^th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/126].

Harrison -v- A.G. [2004 JLR 111].

Mallet -v- A.G.[2000 JLR 256].

Prior -v- A.G. [2002 JLR 11].

A.G. -v- Cooper (30^th November, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/241].

A.G. -v- Ferguson, Lundy and Mullacky [1997 JLR  N.14C].