Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - assault.

[2015]JRC016

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 January 2015

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Nicolle and Ramsden

The Attorney General

-v-

Hugo Miguel Martins

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

2 counts of:	Grave and criminal assault (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Assault (Count 5).

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of the morning the defendant chased his first victim along Bath Street.  When victim fell to the ground the defendant kicked him six times to the upper body (Count 1).  The victim scrambled away. 

Three minutes later the defendant encountered another young man in Bath Street.  After a verbal exchange the defendant punched the man in the face, kicked him to the ground, and then kicked him again to the upper body.  After protests from the victim's female companions the defendant briefly took a few steps away from the scene then returned to deliver a further kick and punch to the seated victim who suffered bruising and a laceration to the face (Count 2). 

A passer-by stopped and spoke to the group.  The defendant shoved him, punched him to the head and kicked him (Count 5). 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, co-operation, some remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' youth detention
Count 2:	18 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' youth detention

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Recommendation for deportation made.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for two counts of grave and criminal assault and one count of common assault, all committed on one evening.  All of the offences were seen on CCTV and two of them involved unknown victims who did not come forward to complain.  They were all ferocious, drink-fuelled assaults involving kicks and punches on near-random strangers, at night in the streets of St Helier, in the presence of members of the public. 

2.        The defendant is 20 and therefore comes within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. 

3.        The Crown, having taken into account and applied the factors in Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111, take the view that these offences are too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence and move for a sentence of 18 months' youth detention. 

4.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty at an early stage and was cooperative with the police.  He has, we are told, a good work ethic.  He has no previous convictions and is therefore of good character, and as just mentioned, he has the benefit of youth.  He tells us that he has abstained from alcohol since this occasion and is remorseful.  He is supported today by his girlfriend, who is in Court, and we have letters from him, his sister with whom he lives, his girlfriend and others.  The defendant told the police that he had been provoked by the victims but if that is so, we agree with the Crown that his response was disproportionate and entirely without justification. 

5.        We have considered all of the mitigation put forward by Advocate Bell but the policy of the Court is clear.  It takes a very serious view of drunken violence in the streets of St Helier and in our judgment these offences are too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence, notwithstanding the defendant's youth.  We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown. 

6.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 month's youth detention, on Count 2: 18 months' youth detention, concurrent, Count 5; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent, which makes a total of 18 months' youth detention and we are required to advise you that on your release you may be subject to a period of supervision. 

7.        We turn now to the issue of deportation.  The defendant has only lived in Jersey for just over a year and his only ties here are his sister and his girlfriend.  He is currently unemployed.  He is sleeping on a sofa in his sister's one-bedroomed flat.  He wishes to remain in Jersey as he says the work prospects are better here. 

8.        Taking the first part of the test in Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 and assisted by the observations of the Deputy Bailiff in AG v De Barros [2013] JRC 079, and having taken in to account Advocate Bell's submissions, we do find that the defendant's continued presence in the Island is detrimental to the public good.  It is true that he has been assessed at a low risk of reconviction but that is because he says he now rarely drinks but it is clear that when he does drink he has a real propensity for violence.  The sheer level of violence in these three separate attacks upon random members of the public, at night, on the streets of St Helier and in the presence of other members of the public is more than sufficient, in our view, to meet the first part of the test. 

9.        Turning to the second part of the test the defendants ties to the Island, which we have just described, are such that in our view his deportation would not be disproportionate having regard to his convention rights and those of others not before the Court.  We do therefore recommend his deportation. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

AG-v-De Barros [2013] JRC 079.

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182.

AG-v-Abreu [2007] JLR N 32.