Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - obstructing a police officer - robbery.

[2015]JRC151

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 July 2015

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Blampied and Morgan

The Attorney General

-v-

Joshua Lewis Lunn

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

1 count of:	Obstructing a police officer (Count 1).
1 count of:	Robbery (Count 3).

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1 - obstructing a police officer

Shortly after 03.00 on 27^th December, 2014, police officers were called to Mulcaster Street.  They saw door staff from the Turkish Kitchen restraining the defendant in the middle of the street.  He was intoxicated, unsteady on his feet and struggled to put together coherent sentences. 

He occasionally shouted at people outside the takeaway and was agitated and aggressive.  Officers felt that the defendant's continued presence could lead to violence, and he was ordered to leave the area and not return that night.  He left, but returned a few minutes later and stood on the front steps of the takeaway.  Officers told him that he had to leave the area and he then punched the cigarette disposal box on the front of the building. 

He was arrested and cautioned.  On arrival in the custody suite, he shouted aggressively and clenched his teeth.  He refused to get out of the van and had to be guided out by two officers.  He continued to behave erratically. 

Count 2 - robbery

In the early hours of Saturday, 28^th February, 2015, a small house party was underway a house in St Brelade.  The victim had been invited, and the defendant was also there.  At one point the defendant had a disagreement with the victim about whose job was harder; they both work in licensed premises. 

When another male and the defendant were in the kitchen together, the defendant said: "I want to hit that kid, but I'm not going to as there's a baby in the house."  He was told not to cause problems. 

There was a further exchange with the defendant and the victim grew increasingly concerned.  He told a friend that the defendant had made him uncomfortable so he had decided to leave. 

The defendant followed the victim from the house to the Airport roundabout, a distance of about 2.3 km, which is just under 1½ miles.  

He punched the victim to the left side of the face and to the chest with his clenched right fist, and kicked him to the body once he fell to the floor.  The victim was unconscious for a time, after which the defendant demanded his mobile phone, and told him to enter the code so it was unlocked. 

The victim recalls sitting on the wooden railing, "trying to work out what had happened" before walking to the home of a friend who lived nearby.  When he arrived he realised that there was a lot of blood on his face and hands.  He went to Accident and Emergency. 

Police officers arrived at A & E and a doctor informed them that the victim was suffering from concussion.  At about 06.00 officers went to the house and found the defendant asleep in bed.  He was arrested and cautioned.  He made no reply.  The case from the victim's telephone was found in his pocket.  The telephone was not inside and the case was damaged and blood stained.  The victim's telephone was found in the top of a kitchen cupboard. 

The victim's upper and lower front teeth were chipped and two molars were damaged.  He has since undergone extensive dental work, including an extraction, a crown and work to correct the chips. 

In interview the defendant told officers that he had drunk a 70 cl bottle of Jack Daniels with coke and about seven beers between noon and midnight.  The defendant admitted that he left the flat to follow the victim in order to hit him, and stole the phone when he saw it on the ground. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and was cooperative with the police.  He offered a spontaneous expression of remorse in interview.  He does not have the benefit of youth or good character, but has a good employment record, albeit for a number of short-term situations.

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has eight previous convictions for offences which include battery and common assault in the UK.  He also has a previous conviction for being drunk and disorderly. 

A malicious damage charge in 2011 and common assault in 2013 were also committed when he was heavily intoxicated.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2 weeks' imprisonment.
Count 3:	30 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 30 months' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order sought in the amount of £1,355 towards the victim's dental fees.

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from 1^st, 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 for a period of 1 year from the date of his release from prison. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Compensation Order made in the amount of £1,355 payable at the rate of £50 per month not to commence until three months after your release.

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You chose to follow the victim when he left the party and then attack him at night in the road by punching him so that he fell to the ground; you then admit that you kicked him once to the chest, although we accept there is no independent evidence of that.  The victim seems to have passed out and when he came round you demanded his phone.  You made him unlock the phone by putting his code in.  When another person who had been at the party intervened, you walked off with the phone.  The victim was taken to A&E and he had suffered cuts, bruises to his forehead, bruising to his left eye and his front teeth were chipped.  The phone was subsequently recovered.  You had been drinking a lot that day and, as your record shows, you become aggressive when you are intoxicated and that is exactly what happened on this occasion. 

2.        Advocate Fogarty has put forward mitigation on your behalf; she has pointed to your guilty plea and, in particular, to the fact that you admitted what had happened immediately and that is very much to your credit.  She has also referred to your work record since coming to Jersey and the contents of the background report.  We have read your letter and the other letter we have received; in particular from yours, we note that you realise you have got a problem with alcohol and what it does to you and that you are determined to try and address it whilst you are in custody.  We hope very much you can because, as Advocate Fogarty said, if you do not, then sadly when you come out you will probably get into trouble again and you will go back inside again, and so the cycle will continue, whereas if you can crack this desire to drink to excess and then get aggressive, hopefully we will not see you before us again and that would be to your benefit as well as the community's.  But, as Advocate Fogarty has accepted, the Court takes a very serious view of robberies.  I am just going to repeat what the Court of Appeal said in the case of Gill:-

"No community can tolerate violent robberies of this kind, and any person who commits such a violent robbery in Jersey, whatever may be the circumstances of the robber, must expect to receive severe punishment by a long prison sentence."

That was, of course, said in relation to a more serious case than yours but the principle of custodial sentences for robberies is well established; so we have to impose a prison sentence in this case and we do think that the element of premeditation in this case is an aggravating feature.  You followed this victim for nearly 1½ miles with the intention throughout of attacking him, so this was not a spur of the moment reaction to something.  We think the Crown's conclusions have made every allowance for the mitigation available and we are going to grant them. 

3.        On Count 1; 2 weeks' imprisonment, on Count 3; the robbery charge, 30 months' imprisonment, normally those would be consecutive because they were completely separate incidents but we agree they should be concurrent to reflect the totality principle.  So that is 30 months' imprisonment in all.

4.        We are going to make a Compensation Order for £1,355 but we agree that you must have time to get yourself sorted when you are released so we will order payment of £50 per month, not to commence until three months after your release.

5.        We also make an Exclusion Order as requested for 1 year, not including the 2^nd categories but including the others and that is 1 year from the date of release and what we mean by the date of release is two thirds, i.e. when you are released permanently assuming good conduct.  If there is any day release earlier that does not count as being released.  So that is the sentence of the Court. 

Authorities

Gill v AG [1999] JLR N18c.

Gill-v-AG 1999/160.

AG v Coughlan and Murphy [2013] JRC 155B.

AG v W & P [2010] JRC 229.

AG v Abreu and Vieira [2010] JRC 168.

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.