Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC070

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th May 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and Clapham.

The Attorney General

-v-

Joseph Anthony Cummins

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea to:

1 count of:

Grave and Criminal Assault.

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty/

Details of Offence:

The Defendant approached the victim, Dean Crocker, in Pure Nightclub and without warning smashed a glass in his face.  He then left the Club, but was pursued by doormen and apprehended shortly afterwards.  When apprehended he had an injury to his hand.  The victim required "fairly extensive" suturing to his face and was left with permanent facial scarring.  Whilst being escorted back to the Club, Cummins made remarks to the effect that he had "done it" because the victim had been winding him up about an historic episode of abuse. 

When interviewed by Police Cummins denied the offence.  However, when pressed he did say that he had been subjected to provocative comments by the victim, on the night in question in the Club, and on previous occasions.  He later said that he could not control his anger and snapped.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, extreme provocation, remorse, residual youth, supportive family and partner.

Previous Convictions:

13 previous convictions comprising 31 offences.  One previous conviction for assault in 2002.

Conclusions:

33 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

This was a violent attack warranting a prison sentence and the Court felt that the Crown's conclusions were entirely correct.  However, in light of the high degree of provocation the Court was willing to make a reduction.  2 years' imprisonment.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was a serious attack.  You thrust a glass into the victim's face, causing the glass to shatter.  You did this without any warning, and it caused a number of cuts, some of which will no doubt leave scars and you were really very fortunate that the injuries caused to the victim were not more serious. 

2.        This Court has repeatedly said and we repeat again today that those who commit violence in public places in St Helier particularly if they use weapons will face substantial sentences.  There is too much violence in Jersey, often fuelled by drink and the Court is determined to try and send a message that such matters will not be accepted. 

3.        So despite the mitigation put forward by Advocate Haines such as your guilty plea, your youth, your remorse and the other matters he referred to, the Crown's conclusions are entirely correct, subject to one matter that we are going to come to.

4.        The Crown has agreed that you should be sentenced on the version of facts put forward by the defence, and that is the victim in this case had repeatedly taunted you over a particularly sensitive matter and that he had done so again a few minutes before the incident.  We do not propose to describe the nature of that taunting, but we agree with Mr Haines' description of it as being a 'high degree of provocation' and it had been cumulative.  For that reason alone we are willing to reduce the sentence in this case, because we understand that it would have been very provoking behaviour.  Nevertheless, a prison sentence is inevitable.  The sentence of the Court is 2 years' imprisonment.

No Authorities