Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC110

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th June 2007

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Bailiff, and Jurats King and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jamie Lee Saville

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following a guilty plea to:

1 count of:

Grave and Criminal assault.  (Count 1).

Age:  21 (20 at time of offence).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Assault committed in a nightclub in the early hours of the morning.  After a verbal altercation, Saville struck the victim to the side of the face with a glass beer bottle, which smashed on impact.  Victim sustained relatively minor injuries consisting of lacerations and bruising to his face and ear.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Youth (aged 20 when committed offence).  No previous convictions for violence.  Offence out of character.  Element of provocation from victim.  Abstained from alcohol since offence.  Undertakes voluntary work.  Has support of girlfriend, her family and his family.  Positive references and letter showing remorse.

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction consisting of 26 offences (dishonesty and driving offences).  No previous convictions for violence.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

12 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

180 hours Community Service Order (stated as being the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention.

Court commented that the victim's injuries could have been far more serious.  It said that glassing is a "hideous" crime, hence the policy that such offences should be met with immediate custodial sentences.  However, the Court felt able to sentence Saville to a period of community service due to the mitigating features of the case.

M. St. J O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This Defendant has pleaded guilty to one Count of grave and criminal assault which took place in a nightclub in the early hours of the morning.  Saville was involved in a verbal altercation with the victim of the offence, who was struck in the face by the Defendant with a glass, or bottle, which smashed on impact.  Fortunately the injuries suffered were not serious, although one of the cuts was close to the victim's eye.

2.        Saville has a conviction for various offences of dishonesty for which a community service order was imposed, but has not previously been convicted of any offence involving violence.

3.        Glassing is a hideous crime.  It is so easy to cause injuries which mark a person for life, or remove an eye, and that is why the Court almost invariably imposes a custodial sentence for offences of this kind.

4.        We have taken account of the fact that you were under the age of 21 when this offence was committed, and the Law requires us not to impose a custodial sentence, unless we consider that the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  We have given very anxious consideration to this because we do think that a glassing is a most serious offence.  However, we accept that you were subjected to provocation and had been subjected to provocation for some time, and as your Counsel put it "there was a slow burning fuse and your self control was lost", but that does not excuse what you did.  We have also taken account of all the other things said by your Counsel.  We accept that this was out of character.  We note that you have given up drinking and we note, with a great deal of approval, that you have been doing voluntary work at St Peter's Youth Club.  We have also taken account of your relationship with your girlfriend and we think you are very lucky to have her support and the support of her family, and your family too, and we have read all the references that have been placed before us.  We have also read your letter, and we note that you take responsibility for what you did, which is the right and proper thing to do.  Having said all that, we think that we can avoid sending you to prison on this occasion because of all the mitigating factors which I have outlined.

5.        We are going to order you to do 180 hours of community service and we state that the alternative, if you do not perform that community service satisfactorily, is a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.  We hope that in future if this kind of situation arises, which it is very likely to do, you will do the sensible thing and walk away and not get involved in something of this kind ever again.

No Authorities