BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Da Silva [2016] JRC 046 (19 February 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2016/2016_046.html Cite as: [2016] JRC 046, [2016] JRC 46 |
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - Affray
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Thomas |
The Attorney General
-v-
Paulo Jorge Da Silva
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
1 count of: |
Affray (Count 1). |
Age: 41.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The defendant had been drinking and playing a coin game with two friends outside a convenience store on a housing estate. An argument ensued and the defendant went home and collected a small silver kitchen knife with an 8 cm blade. On his return the argument resumed and the defendant pulled out the knife from his trouser pocket.
After a scuffle the knife fell to the ground. The defendant picked it up and thrust the pointed end towards the victim's chest. The victim ran off with the defendant in pursuit still holding the knife shouting threats to kill him. He shouted at a bystander before breaking off the pursuit and walking home.
There were several witnesses in the area including an infant. One witness was so terrified she records shaking like a leaf.
The incident took place at midday.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea and a good employment record as well as providing financial support to his son.
Previous Convictions:
Two counts of grave and criminal assault in a single incident in 2011 whereby the defendant received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
18 months' imprisonment. |
Forfeiture and destruction of the knife sought.
No recommendation for deportation sought,
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court noted that it must have been shocking and frightening for those who witnessed the events. The defendant had avoided deportation by the narrowest of margins.
Conclusions granted.
Advocate M. H. Temple, Solicitor General.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced for a single count of making an affray. It is clear that alcohol has played a significant part and, as is often noted in this Court, that is an aggravating feature and not a mitigating one. But what makes this crime so serious is the fact that you returned home after an argument had started, armed yourself with a knife, returned armed, and then brandished it and threatened people with it. At that point the consequences could have been very severe. You were a drunken person armed with a knife. It must have been a shocking and frightening experience for those who witnessed it.
2. We have given due regard to the mitigation available to you, to your plea of guilty, and your good work record but we are not persuaded that you are as remorseful as might be expected and your record is not a good one. The previous offence of grave and criminal assault was a serious one.
3. We have considered carefully the sentence that we should impose but we believe that the conclusions of the Crown are correct and you are accordingly sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
4. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the weapon.
5. We turn now to the question of deportation. This is the second time that you have been convicted; you have previously been convicted for a grave and criminal assault and this is the second time you have been convicted for an offence of serious potential violence. We are satisfied that the first limb of the Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 test has been passed and we have thought most anxiously about whether or not we should recommend your deportation from the Island at the conclusion of your sentence. It is by the narrowest of margins that we conclude that we should not, on this occasion, recommend your deportation. Please understand that should anything like this happen again, the Court will almost inevitably consider that you should be subject to a recommendation for deportation. We are giving you one last chance.