Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drunk and disorderly - assault - violently resisting police - contempt of court.

[2014]JRC035

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 February 2014

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Morgan and Crill.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Anthony Cook

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

1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly (Count 1).
1 count of:	Assault (Count 2).
1 count of:	Violently resisting police in the execution of their duty (Count 3).
2 counts of:	Contempt of Court (Counts 4 and 5).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1-3

Cook encountered PC Picot, who was dealing with a skateboarder, in West Centre.  Cook, who was highly intoxicated repeatedly told the officer to leave the skateboarder alone, and refused to obey several orders to walk away (Count 1).  The officer therefore arrested him, and Cook began to struggle, during which PC Picot was taken to the ground and put in a headlock.  A member of the public, seeing that the officer was in distress, came to the officer's assistance and managed to break the headlock and keep Cook restrained until police reinforcements arrived (Count 2).  When a further officer arrived, Cook was still struggling.  He was handcuffed, but during the struggle to do so, PC Picot received a scratch to his eyeball.  Cook continued to shout, swear and make threats to the officers as he was taken to the police van and throughout his transfer to Police Headquarters.  He continued to be volatile and abusive and so was placed in a cell before the custody procedure could be completed. 

The officer suffered minor bruising, a corneal scratch and a disruption of his shoulder joint. 

Counts 4 and 5

Having been charged with the above offences, Cook was taken to the Magistrate's Court for his first appearance.  He refused to come out of the cells to appear before the Magistrate.  A cell extraction team was called, but he continued to refuse and was returned to HMP La Moye.  The following day, he again refused to come out of his cell to appear before the Magistrate. 

Assessed as being at high risk of reconviction and high risk of harm. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas and difficult background.

The Defence

Time served, assault at lower end of the scale, Counts 1-3 all part of a single incident, only minor injuries, letter of remorse.

Previous Convictions:

32 previous convictions, including 2 assaults on police officers, an assault, 8 offences of resisting arrest and a breach of the peace. 

Conclusions:

The Crown submitted that the offences demonstrate an anti-social disdain for public order, the police and the Court process, which is reflected in his previous convictions. 

Count 1:	1 week's imprisonment.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 4:	2 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1-3.
Count 5:	2 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1-4.

Total: 1 year and 4 weeks' imprisonment.

Exclusion Order sought for a period of 12 months excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House to take effect from the date of release from prison.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You have a poor record for public order offences including two previous assaults on police officers and numerous public order offences and now you are before us again for the same sort of offence.  As we have heard, you interfered, without any reason, in the police officer who was dealing with a skateboarder in West's Centre.  The ensuing altercation resulted in your assaulting him by putting him in a headlock. 

2.        We commend Mr John Pinel, a member of the public, who intervened in order to help the police officer, who he saw was in trouble; and he managed to break your headlock.  In due course a further police officer arrived but you continued to struggle violently and to resist arrest and the original police officer suffered some minor bruising and also a laceration of his lip.  It is these events which give rise to Counts 1 to 3. 

3.        The two contempt charges arise out of your refusal to leave the cells in the Magistrate's Court in order to appear in the Court. 

4.        Advocate Bell has urged that we should impose a non-custodial sentence.  He refers to your early guilty plea which we accept, to the references, in particular that a job is open for you and you clearly have a good work record, to the letters of support which you have received, to your own letter in which you ask for a chance, and to the fact that you have spent now the equivalent of 6 months on remand.  The difficulty is that you asked for a chance on the last occasion you came before this Court and the Court gave you one. You said then very much the same as you are saying now, but you have not taken advantage of the chance which was offered then.  You are going to have to address your drinking and you are going to have to overcome your hostility to the police. 

5.        We have considered whether we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence but we are satisfied that we cannot.  The police are entitled to the Court's protection and we want to repeat what we said in the case of AG-v-Pereira [2013] JRC 214:-

"On a daily basis police officers put their personal safety on the line in order to protect the rest of us.  They are entitled to the Court's protection when people assault them so as to send out a clear message to others that it is not worth assaulting the police."

6.        We have carefully considered all the various points which Advocate Bell has made on your behalf.  We are pleased you are taking advantage of the facilities in the prison and we hope that you continue to do so, so that when you do come out you can regain your employment and hopefully move on with your life; but we cannot accept a non-custodial sentence in this case. 

7.        We are going to grant the conclusions of the Crown which we think make adequate allowances so on Count 1; 1 week's imprisonment, Count 2; 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 3; 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive, Count 4; 2 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, and Count 5; 2 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive.  That is a total of 1 year and 4 weeks' imprisonment.

8.        We also make the Exclusion Order as moved for by the Crown so that is exclusion from 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding excluding the Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 12 months to take effect from the date of release from prison.

Authorities

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998.

AG-v-Pereira [2013] JRC 214.

AG v Aubert [2011] JRC 004.

AG v Cook [2009] JRC 192.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey Third edition.