Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2015]JRC124

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 June 2015

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Milner

The Attorney General

-v-

Samuel Joseph Furness

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

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had been out drinking.  By late evening he was at Rojos in St Helier.  The bar was crowded.  The defendant was drunk.  Some minor pushing took place between him and the victim as both sought to get to the bar.  The defendant became aggressive, picked up a glass from the bar and intentionally struck the victim a blow aimed deliberately at the side of his head.  The glass broke causing lacerations both immediately behind and in front of the left ear which required 11 stitches.  The blow narrowly missed both the carotid artery and the facial nerve.  Had either been damaged the victim would have suffered far graver consequences, including permanent facial disfigurement and the possibility of bleeding to death. 

The defendant had previous convictions for disorderly conduct, obstructing police and malicious damage, all committed in drink.  This latest offence marked a very serious escalation. 

Aggravating features

Though committed on the spur of the moment the defendant admitted in police interview that he had made a conscious decision to use the glass to hit the victim and had intended to hit him in the side of the head with it.  The blow was administered with substantial force causing nasty injuries.  It was only good fortune that these had not been far more severe.  There had been no provocation at all. 

Details of Mitigation:

Committed on the spur of the moment and limited to one blow.  The wounds, though nasty, had apparently healed well and although the victim continued to feel sensitive about the scars he appeared to have made a good emotional recovery as well.  The defendant had shown remorse and empathy for his victim which were considered genuine.  He had referred himself to the drug and alcohol service and was making good progress.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. 

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction of:-1 x being disorderly on licensed premises; 1 x malicious damage 1 x obstructing/refusing to obey police. 

Conclusions:

Count 2:

3 years' imprisonment.

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £1,500-£2,000 or 14 days' imprisonment in default. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The assault had been deliberate and was not remotely justifiable.  It had come out of nowhere.  The defendant's remorse and his sorrow towards the victim for his acts were clear and genuine.  He had produced character references which were as good as any the court had seen.  Nevertheless, the Court's policy concerning drunken assaults using a glass as a weapon was clear and would be followed. 

Count 2:

2 years' imprisonment.

Compensation Order made in favour of the victim in the sum of £1,500 with 3 months in which to pay or 14 days' imprisonment in default.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on one count of grave and criminal assault.  At Rojo's, late at night, for no reason that is remotely justifiable, you deliberately picked up a glass and used it to smack the victim behind his ear, as a result of which he has suffered injury with cuts which needed stitches and he has written a letter to the Court which is expressed in very moderate terms in which he says:-

"The physical pain for the first week or so was significant, I was unable to sleep initially which forced me to miss the first three working days of the week, most problematic was the swelling of the jaw which caused acute pain whenever I attempted to open my mouth or chew.  For the first two weeks it was impossible to eat most normal foods so my diet was restricted to soft fruits and the like.  After the swelling had gone down sufficiently to recover normal functions, I was still not able fully to extend my jaw, say to yawn, for around six weeks.  Obviously the lasting impact of the incident is the scars to the side of my head.  I am fortunate that the main scar is behind the ear and is not easily visible, it is nevertheless something I am quite self-conscious about, which will not go away."

The consequences of your assault could have been much worse, as you recognise. 

2.        We have considered very carefully all the mitigation which has been advanced on your behalf very ably by Advocate Morley-Kirk.  The psychiatric report and the social enquiry report all show this to have been an offence which, as far as you personally are concerned, quite apart from the victim, came out of nowhere; that you have mitigation in your background which may have had some part to play in the causation of the offence, and you have supplied to us some references which I have to say the Court considers are as good a set of references as any we have seen.  You have proposed to us a letter of apology which you would like to go to the victim and, when I caught the prosecuting counsel's eye while your counsel was addressing us, he has agreed to send it on to the victim for you.  And so your apology to the victim will be received and the remorse which you have expressed all round is quite clear and quite obvious and we are satisfied is quite genuine.  Your counsel rightly says that you have done everything that you should have done in relation to tackling these various problems since it existed. 

3.        Nonetheless, and it is important to say nonetheless, the Court's policy in relation to drunken assaults committed on members of the public at night, completely unprovoked as this was, using a glass as a weapon and leaving the victim with permanent, although relatively minor scarring, the Court's policy in these sorts of cases is clear and a custodial sentence is almost invariably imposed and we think that it is right to impose it in this case.  It is unfortunate from your perspective, of course, for all the reasons which are plain from the material that has been put before us but you recognise in what you have said to us that you have to be sentenced for the offence you have committed and that is what we are going to do. 

4.        We think the Crown's conclusions are too long and we are going to impose a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for this particular offence. 

5.        In addition, we are going to order you to pay compensation of £1,500 and that should be paid within 3 months of today and, in default, there will be an additional sentence of 14 days' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

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

AG's Reference No 20 of 1993 (1994) 15 Cr. App. R. (S).