Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - assault - breach of orders.

[2016]JRC027

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 January 2016

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Anthony Howard

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

2 counts of:

Assault (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Friday 24^th July, 2015, Howard had been out drinking.  On his way home at 11:15pm he saw a Parish Community Support Officer issuing a parking fines to a vehicle; Howard approached the officer calling him a 'parking pirate', an altercation ensued which culminated in Howard punching the officer to the jaw, causing reddening and minor swelling.  The officer had called police and Howard was arrested.  When detained at Rouge Bouillon Police Station Howard spat at an officer when he opened the cell hatch to check on his wellbeing, spittle landing on the officer's hand and arm.  Howard had been sentenced before this Court on 17^th April, 2015, to undertake 180 hours community service and placed on probation for 12 Months with a treatment order; the offences put him in breach of those orders. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea on Indictment, however a 'not guilty' plea in the lower court, with regard to Count 1, had delayed the judicial process until the offence was admitted following a pre-trial review.  Since the evening in question Howard had completed the hours of community service, complied with the orders, remained out of trouble and had been working towards employment through a job coach. 

Previous Convictions:

Thirty-five previous convictions, several drink or drug-related, numerous breaches of previous orders.  Had appeared before all the criminal courts of the Island and had been warned by this Court, when adopting the 'high risk strategy' of a non-custodial sentence in April 2015 "this is positively the last chance".

Conclusions:

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Breach of Orders imposed on 17^th April, 2015:- No separate penalty.

Total: 9 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	4 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Breach of Orders imposed 17^th April 2015:- No separate penalty.

Total: 7 months' imprisonment.

Previous orders discharged.

The Court was disappointed Howard had not taken the chance given to him; when the Court said "positively the last chance" it meant exactly that, therefore no option but to impose a custodial sentence. 

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

Advocate A. T. H. English for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants stands to be sentenced for two assaults, the first committed upon a community support officer, carrying out his duties by issuing parking infraction notices to illegally parked cars, not a car belonging to the defendant, and the second upon a police officer who he spat at when in his cell.  The defendant was intoxicated and his assault upon the community support officer in public was unprovoked and verbally very mocking and particularly abusive, drawing a small crowd.  The officer feared for his safety and in the altercation in which he was pushing the defendant away defensively, the officer was punched in the face, although it has to be said that the injuries he suffered were thankfully minor. 

2.        The defendant was belligerent and difficult on arrest and in custody and, once in his cell, once again, became verbally very abusive, denigrating the police generally.  The defendant spat at the police officer through the cell hatch in a manner which was clearly pre-meditated and planned.  The officer managed to shield himself so that the spittle landed on his hand and forearm.

3.        These assaults were committed three months after the Royal Court had imposed 180 hours of community service and a 12 month Probation Order upon the defendant for offences involving larceny and malicious damage.  In that case the Court had departed from the custodial sentence sought by the Crown and in passing sentence said this to the defendant:-

"You must understand this Court has been invited to take what might be characterised as a high-risk strategy and has agreed, on this occasion, to do so.  We are impressed by the reports and the possibility that you have seriously changed your attitude but this is positively the last chance.  If you breach this order you will inevitably be back before the Court and you will inevitably face the very real prospect of a significant period in prison.  If you offend again in the future, it will be very hard indeed for the Court to approach the matter in this way again.  Take this opportunity, it is your last.

4.        The defendant then went on to complete his community service satisfactorily and the Probation Department report that he has generally been doing well on probation.  The defendant has a bad record, including offences of violence and many previous breaches of orders and is assessed at the higher end of the moderate risk of reconviction within 12 months.  The prosecution say that because these offences took place in breach of the Court's order of 17^th April, 2015, anything other than a custodial sentence would be inappropriate. 

5.        Looking at the mitigation we have listened to all the points put forward by Advocate English.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, he has written a letter of apology to the community officer and to the police officer.  He has written a letter of remorse to the Court.  In our view, it is a very good letter and he says this toward the end of it:-

"I have come to understand that I am almost 30 years old and it is time to grow up."

6.        He clearly has been making progress and it is fair to say that there are signs of improvement which would support what Advocate English said that there is perhaps an upward curve.  He has gone on to find accommodation, is looking for employment and appears to be taking steps to control his alcohol consumption. 

7.        The Court has always made it clear that the police are entitled to the protection of the Courts and if anyone assaults a police officer in the course of arrest and when being processed at the police station, may expect to receive additional punishment.  Spitting is a particularly disgusting form of assault and although our understanding is that the risk of infection by spitting may actually be low, it brings with it an understandable fear of infection.  The Court has expressed the need to protect ambulance staff from assaults and abuse (see AG-v-Nimmo [2012] JRC 145A) and we would extend that to community support officers carrying out their duties. 

8.        The fact of the matter is that in April 2015 the Court gave the defendant a last chance in the clearest of warnings which we have just read out.  We want to make it clear that when the Court does so it means what it says.  It is deeply disappointing to this Court that the defendant did not take the chance given to him by that Court which went out on a limb to assist him.  This offending took place within 3 months of that warning being given and it involved assaults on officers carrying out their duty, with the defendant using particularly abusive language and foul conduct.  We agree that a custodial sentence must be imposed, although we are going to, in applying the totality principle, reduce the length of the sentence slightly. 

9.        We first of all discharge the existing Probation Order.  On Count 1 you are sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment and on Count 2 to 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.  In terms of the breach of the orders of 17^th April, 2015, Counts 1, 2 and 3, we impose no separate penalty so that makes a total of 7 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Howard [2015] JRC 074.

AG-v-Nimmo [2012] JRC 145A.

Whelan on Aspect of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.