Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC127

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18^th June 2009

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Clapham, King, Morgan, Newcombe and Fisher.

The Attorney General

-v-

Stanley Farnon

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 16^th April, 2009, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.  (Count 2).

Age:  59.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 7^th June, 2008, the defendant had consumed a large quantity of alcohol and prescribed tablets.  At lunchtime, he was told by a friend that the victim had been spreading rumours about him.  He made two unsuccessful attempts during the afternoon to find and confront the victim.  At 5pm, the defendant went to his flat and packed two substantial kitchen knives in a bag in the anticipation that he would make a third attempt to confront the victim.  As a minimum, the defendant anticipated that he might use one of the knives if he found the victim.  At the third attempt the defendant did confront the victim outside a bar in Mulcaster Street.  They argued for a minute.  The victim denied spreading rumours about the defendant.  The victim posed no threat and did not act in an aggressive manner.  The defendant said in evidence that he then decided to stab the victim in order to give him something that he would have to explain to others.  The victim was stabbed with the smaller of the two knives, resulting in an artery being cut in the stomach area.  The wound was 5 inches wide and 2.5 inches deep.  The victim ran back into the bar for refuge.  The defendant followed him in, knife still in hand.  The defendant said that he taunted the victim "you are not such a big man now".  The defendant felt elated, having won the confrontation.  The defendant followed the victim across the bar and into another bar on the same premises notwithstanding the presence of the barmaid who was scared by the defendant holding a knife.  The defendant said that he left the area after he lost sight of the victim.  His departure coincided with the presence of two male members of staff in the second bar.  The victim was rushed to hospital by ambulance and underwent surgery.  He had an adverse reaction to the drugs given to improve his blood pressure.  His pressure plummeted and his condition became life threatening for several hours.  He has since made a full recovery save for a scar

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Had to endure the process of an attempted murder trial which resulted in a not guilty verdict.  A man of previous good character assessed at a low risk of offending.  Exceptional mitigation in that he was the primary carer for his wife who was terminally ill.  Remorse expressed.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Very serious offence.  Starting point for such an offence which took place in public, involved an element of planning.  Featured no provocation in any real sense and resulted in a serious injury.  

Count 2:

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court was moved by the exceptional mitigation but the offence was so serious that custody was the only option.  Court accepted that the prosecution conclusion of 5 years was correct but decided to reduce the sentence to 4 years as an act of mercy.

Count 2:

4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives.

H. Sharp, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Farnon, you are a 59 year old man of hitherto good character in that you have no previous convictions.  Yet on this day when you were clearly very intoxicated, you went home, and you packed 2 kitchen knives in a bag intending to go and confront the victim over things that you had been told he was saying about you.  When you found him you had a heated discussion in the street outside the Royal Yacht, where the matter was captured on CCTV.  It is quite clear that the victim offered no threat to you at all, nor did he make any gesture which could have been construed as a threat or an aggressive action, he was simply talking to you.  Despite this you stabbed him in the stomach without warning by pulling out one of the knives that were in your bag.  It was a substantial kitchen knife and it penetrated 2½ inches and cut an artery, leading to considerable bleeding on the part of the victim.  He was taken to hospital and in fact, whilst there, he suffered a life-threatening drop in blood pressure, but it is accepted that this was probably due to an adverse reaction to the anaesthetics; it was not due to the injury which you had caused.  Fortunately there were no long-term physical injuries other than a scar.

2.        The Crown has summarised the various factors in the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 and we accept that the Crown has accurately summarised those matters.  In particular there was an element of deliberation in this offence because you took the knives out, 2 of them, in anticipation of a confrontation with the victim.  This was not a case of somebody in the heat of the moment picking up something that happened to be nearby.

3.        Mr Hopwood has spoken impressively in mitigation on your behalf.  He has referred to the element of verbal provocation, to the fact that you pleaded guilty from the earliest opportunity, he has pointed to your good character, we have read the references and the letters and we particularly read your letter and we accept that you are indeed remorseful for what you did.  We have read all the reports and we accept that you are at low risk of re-offending.  Nevertheless the seriousness of the offence is such that, were it not for the additional matter I am about to mention, the Court would undoubtedly have adopted the Crown's conclusions in that 5 years was the correct length of prison for what you did, even taking account of the mitigating factors I have just described. 

4.        The one unusual factor and the one particular factor which I have not mentioned so far is the fact that your wife is, sadly, terminally ill.  She has a short life expectancy.  Although you were separated from her at the time of the offence, since you were released on bail you have been her main carer.  If you are sent to prison she will have to stay in the hospice where she goes for respite care or will have to go to hospital.  Furthermore, if you are sent to prison your daughter, who is at university, is likely to lose her mother in the near future and will have a father in prison.  For these reasons the Court floated with your counsel the possibility of adjourning sentence for a period but for reasons which we understand, you have urged that the Court reach its decision today and pass sentence, whether that is a prison sentence or not.

5.        The Court has considered this aspect very carefully.  We are indeed moved by the difficult position in which your wife now finds herself and you find yourself, but ultimately we have come to the conclusion that what you did on this day is so serious that we cannot proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  What we can do though, as an act of mercy, is to reduce the length of sentence to take account of the exceptional factors.

6.        The sentence is one of 4 years' imprisonment.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the knives.

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.

AG-v-Krawcyzk [2008] JRC 219.

Gladwin-v-AG [2008] JCA 009.