Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - affray - possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

[2012]JRC132

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 July 2012

Before     :

Sir Michael Cameron St. John Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Crill.

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Brian Leon Heard

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

1 count of:	Affray (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having in a public place an offensive weapon, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 2).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 24^th February, 2012, the defendant left his house carrying a 12 inch kitchen knife and a kukri knife (the offensive weapon charge relates to the kukri knife only).  He had drunk a litre of vodka and initially held the knives largely concealed behind his forearms.  He stepped off the pavement into the path of an oncoming ambulance and displayed the knives.  The crew were intimidated so much so that they reversed into the car behind whilst trying to distance themselves from the defendant.  They also contacted the police. 

The defendant then entered a café and asked for a can of coke.  The proprietor noticed the knives and grabbed hold of the defendant's wrists to restrain him.  The proprietor was quickly joined by two police officers and together they struggled to disarm the defendant, who refused to drop the knives.  He had to be struck multiple times and CS gas was deployed.  The defendant did not deliberately intend to attack or injure the officers or the café proprietor, but the risk of injury was grave.  The café was full of patrons, including five children, four of whom were under the age of ten.  All of the people present were put in fear by the incident.  

Details of Mitigation:

Mental Health issues; previous good character (volunteering aid work abroad etc); positive references; guilty plea; cooperated with police (to an extent); intended to use the knife for self harm.

Previous Convictions:

Minor convictions, treated as being of previous good character. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court found that this case was not sufficiently exceptional to justify a non-custodial sentence - the Court's policy must be upheld.  However the conclusions would be reduced as the circumstances were exceptional.  The Court emphasised that this case was not to be taken as a guideline for other cases involving knives. 

The café proprietor was commended for his bravery. 

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives ordered.

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This must have been a terrifying incident for anyone who witnessed it and the statements from the various witnesses referred to by the Crown Advocate confirm that this is so.  It is completely unacceptable for a person to walk around the streets of St Helier in possession of a large knife and then violently resist the efforts of the police to disarm him. 

2.        Advocate Grace has emphasised that this is not a case where the defendant used a knife, or even threatened anyone or brandished it.  He had the knife with him for the purposes of self-harm because of his long-standing depression and indeed he had self-harmed earlier that evening just before he went out.  She has also referred to the personal mitigation; she has referred to his guilty plea, to the fact that the Crown are willing to treat him as a person of good character; to the contents of the background report and the psychological report; to the letters and references which do show that there is an excellent side to the defendant and he often is willing to help others.  She also relies upon the recommendation of the Probation Service that community service and probation is the right way forward. 

3.        One of the Jurats considers that this is an exceptional case and therefore that Jurat would have agreed with the recommendation of the Probation Service.  The other Jurat feels that this is not possible.  That Jurat considers that the clear policy of the Court on the carrying of knives has to be upheld and that the carrying of knives has to be strongly discouraged.  In that connection the Court in the case of AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168 said this:-

"....Indeed, the mere carrying of a knife is a serious matter, because even if it is concealed or carried for bravado or in the belief that its use in possible self-defence might arise, it takes only a moment of irritation or drunkenness, anger, a perceived insult or something utterly trivial, for the knife to be produced with the result that offences of great seriousness may be committed".

So that Jurat feels that, even in the very unusual circumstances of this case, a custodial sentence cannot be avoided. 

4.        I have therefore had to exercise a casting vote and after careful consideration, notwithstanding the very powerful mitigation, I consider that the policy of the Court in relation to knife crime must be upheld.  But the Court disagrees with the Crown that this offence is more serious than those in the cases of AG-v-Bree [2005] JRC 177 and AG-v-McDougal [2010] JRC 072, to which we were referred.  Indeed it is hard to understand how the Crown came to that conclusion.  In those cases each of the defendants either brandished the knife or threatened someone with it, even though it was not used.  Here there was no brandishing or threatening and, most significantly, the knife was carried with the intention of self-harm rather than for any aggressive intention, and we therefore accept that the likelihood of this defendant having used the knife was remote.  Nevertheless, the vice of knife crime is that one can never predict how somebody in possession of a knife will react to events on the street.  So, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, we propose to reduce the sentence quite substantially but this is not to be taken as any form of guidance for more normal offences of knife crime.

5.        In all the circumstances the sentence of the Court is on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 12 months' imprisonment.

6.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the knives. 

7.        We also draw to the attention of the Prison Authorities the comments in the reports about the risks to the defendant following sentence. 

8.        Finally we do wish to commend the actions of Mr Goncalves.  He showed great courage in seeking to disarm this defendant who was carrying these frightening knives and he was clearly motivated by his desire to protect the women and the children in his café.  It was a very courageous act and we commend him for it.  We hope very much that his courage can be adequately recognised by the appropriate authorities. 

Authorities

Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.

AG-v-Burrell [2003] JLR N53.

AG-v-Burrell [2003] JRC 209.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.

AG-v-Bree [2005] JRC 177.

AG-v-McDougal [2010] JRC 072.

AG-v-Errais and Williamson [2010] JRC 185A.