Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC072

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th April 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q. C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

Colin McDougal

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Affray (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Attempted grave and criminal assault (Counts 2 and 3).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 17^th October, 2009 McDougall, who had a history of mental health problems, had been drinking whilst watching the afternoon football at home.  At round this time, he had a conversation with a neighbour, during which he admitted being depressed and suicidal.  He later went to the Bagot Inn where he carried on drinking before leaving at closing time. 

At 11 30pm McDougall was seen on Belvedere Hill by an off-duty honorary police officer.  He was arguing with a passer-by and was seen to pull a knife from his jeans.  He held it in a stabbing action towards the passer-by and then waved it at other passing pedestrians.  The knife was a kitchen knife, around 10 inches long.  At one point he stepped out in front of a car, making stabbing gestures towards the bonnet.  The female driver was very scared, and ultimately managed to take an alternative route (Count 1). 

The police were called and attended the scene.  They warned McDougall to put down the knife but he advanced on them screaming and shouting.  The officers drew their CS spray.  McDougall continued advancing despite warnings, shouting "I'm going to kill you!" and "God sent me here to do this".  The officers sprayed the defendant but he continued his advance.  They had to draw their batons and strike McDougall in a defensive manner to disarm him.  He was then arrested.  Neither officer was hurt (Counts 2 and 3).

In interview McDougal admitted that he had been drinking but said that he could not remember the events of the evening.  He maintained that he would have been carrying the kitchen knife to cause "self-harm" but accepted that people would have been terrified by him brandishing it in the manner alleged.  He apologised and said that he was very ashamed of his actions. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation, remorse, history of mental health problems, low risk of re-offending. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of knife sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court concluded that a single count of affray would have been sufficed in this case.  However, despite the exceptional circumstances, the Court considered that it nevertheless called for a custodial sentence. 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have pleaded guilty to one count of affray and two counts of attempted grave and criminal assault.  The essence of the offence of affray is that by your conduct and words you have used or threatened violence in such a way that would cause a reasonable person present at the scene to fear for his or her safety.  In this case you were seen at the bottom of Belvedere Hill to be arguing with another man and you held a long knife of some 8 inch blade or so with a stabbing action.  Subsequently you threatened other passers by with the knife and you then moved out into the middle of the road and caused a female motorist to stop her car and made stabbing gestures towards the bonnet.  These members of the public were scared and must have felt very threatened and vulnerable.  Subsequently the police arrived and you threatened them with the knife too.  The charges of attempted grave and criminal assault are laid because, according to the Prosecution, brandishing the knife you went towards the two officers threatening to kill them.  It must have been a very frightening experience for them too.  Police officers are doing their duty attending at the scene and they are entitled to expect those who assault them will be dealt with severely by the Courts.  The offence is aggravated and not excused by the fact that you were drunk at the time. 

2.        In mitigation we have taken into account your guilty plea which came at a very early stage, and your co-operation with the investigation.  We have taken into account your previous good character, and for the avoidance of doubt, we have disregarded entirely the conviction you have for being drunk in charge of a vehicle.  We have taken into account the remorse that you have expressed to the probation officer and in your letter to the Court and indeed, everything which has been said very ably on your behalf by your Counsel and the references that you have supplied. 

3.        We are satisfied that these offences are very much out of character and note that you are assessed as having very low risk of re-offending.  We accept that you are suffering from depression at the time of these offences and you had been on an anti-depressant medication.  We do consider that this was only one incident and a single count of affray would, in our view, have covered this course of conduct adequately. 

4.        On the material before us, and we have been out considering sentences as you will appreciate for some time, we have found it a difficult case.  The Court considers that you are essentially a decent man but we cannot disregard what you actually did with these offences which were committed.  The conduct calls for a custodial sentence which the Court thinks must be imposed. 

5.        With some regret therefore, we sentence you to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent.  But we make it clear that brandishing a knife in public would normally call for a higher sentence and it is only an act of mercy having regard to the unusual mitigation which has been presented here, that this sentence is imposed.  It does have the result, as you will have calculated no doubt, that you should be released, depending on good conduct, by Christmas, for Christmas with your child. 

6.        We see no reason to forfeit the knife here which, at the conclusion of the proceedings including any appeal time, should in our view, go back to the accused's partner assuming she wants it. 

Authorities

AG-v-Shewan 1999/22.

AG-v-Bree [2005] JRC 177.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Farnon [2009] JRC 127.

AG-v-Leitch 2000/76.