Inferior Number Sentencing - Breach of peace - Grave and criminal assault
[2020]JRC012A
Royal Court
(Samedi)
24 January 2020
|
Before :
|
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats
Nicolle and Grime
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Richard Murray
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of:
|
Breach of the peace by fighting (Count
1).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Grave and criminal assault (Count 2).
|
Age: 37.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1: On 26th April,
2019, the defendant and his partner were drinking alcohol in The Halkett public
house in St Helier. Due to the
defendant’s intoxicated state, he was asked to leave. After leaving the public house, CCTV
footage from Burrard Street showed the defendant to be involved in verbal
altercations with several members of the public who walked past, causing his partner
to intervene and pull him away. At
approximately 11:45pm, the defendant became involved in a verbal altercation
with three other males on New Street, this escalated into a fight. The fight obstructed moving traffic, and
involved pushing, shoving and punches being thrown. Both the defendant and his partner
suffered punches to the face, and the defendant was forced to the ground. The fight finished with the defendant
pulling one of the males to the floor and kicking him twice to the torso as
police arrived.
Count 2: On 26th May
2019, the defendant and his partner (“the Complainant”) had been
drinking alcohol in her flat. They
began to argue and the Complainant said she needed to get out for some space. As the Complainant attempted to leave,
the defendant pushed her onto the bed and climbed on top of her. He straddled her and held her down by
her wrists. The defendant
eventually got off the Complainant and they talked. Another argument ensued where the
defendant pushed the Complainant onto the bed and she shouted at him to
stop. The defendant placed his hand
over the Complainant’s mouth to stop her shouting. A neighbour heard the shouting and was
afraid the Complainant could be hurt.
The neighbour found the door ajar, he could hear the Complainant
shouting “help” and could
see her crying and quivering. As
the defendant came to the door to talk to the neighbour, the Complainant exited
the flat via the bedroom window and immediately called the police.
Aggravating Feature
Count 1: Under the influence of
alcohol, previous convictions for violence-related and public disorder offences
(the majority of which were alcohol related), offence committed in a public
place, and put civilian witnesses in fear.
Count 2: Under the influence of
alcohol, previous convictions for violence-related and public disorder offences
(the majority of which were alcohol related), and offence committed in victims
home where she was entitled to feel safe.
Details of Mitigation:
Count 1: Benefit of early guilty
plea.
Count 2: After initially pleading
not guilty plea, the defendant provided a signed basis of plea on 7th
November 2019 (after the Complainant had retracted her complaint) and was
therefore granted some credit but not the full third
Previous Convictions:
13 previous convictions for 14
offences, including offences of public disorder and violence. Of note, the defendant was sentenced to
12 months’ imprisonment for a wounding offence in 2004 and was imprisoned
for 54 months’ for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm in 2008
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
100 hours’ Community Service
Order.
|
|
Count 2:
|
12 month Probation Order and 100
hours’ Community Service Order, concurrent.
|
Total: 12 month Probation Order together with100
hours’ Community Service Order.
Exclusion Order sought excluding
the defendant from 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th
and 7th, category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema,
Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 12
months from date of sentence.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1:
|
60 hours’ Community Service Order
|
|
Count 2:
|
12 month Probation Order and 60 hours’
Community Service Order, concurrent
|
Total: 12 month Probation Order together with
60 hours’ Community Service Order.
Exclusion Order made
excluding the defendant from 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th
and 7th, category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema,
Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and any licenced
premises at which your partner resides or which you need to attend for the
purposes of your employment for a period of 6 months from date of sentence. As an exception, the Court allowed the defendant
and his partner to stay at the Royal Yacht Hotel for two nights on 24th
and 25th January 2020. This
licensed premise was therefore lifted from the exclusion order for these two
nights only.
C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1.
Mr Murray,
as is clear from your previous record and the offences before us today, you
have a problem with alcohol and with aggression. When you have consumed alcohol you
become aggressive and this is shown in the offences before us.
2.
In
relation to Count 1, you were described by an independent passer-by as being
antagonistic and trying to start a fight with anyone before you did end up
fighting with three other men. We
accept that, as your advocate has urged, we should proceed on the basis they
started the actual fighting, but it is perfectly clear from the evidence before
us that you were in a mood to fight that evening and were being aggressive.
3.
In
relation to Count 2, you were again intoxicated, you got into an argument with
your partner during the course of which you pushed her onto the bed and held
her down by her wrists. Even though
there was then a chance to cool down and you had a talk, you then again attacked
her, pushed her on the bed and placed your hand over her mouth to stop her
shouting for help. It was clearly
very frightening for her and her cries for help were such as to attract a
neighbour to come and see if he could help. She was in a very distressed state when
seen by the police shortly afterward.
4.
Now Mr
Murray, if you carry on like this you are going to spend longer and longer
periods in prison. The Crown
accepts that the grave and criminal assault is at the bottom end of the scale
of gravity of such assaults, but the Crown says that had it moved for a prison
sentence it would have moved for a total of 16 months’ imprisonment,
being 4 months on Count 1, and 12 months on Count 2.
5.
We have to
say that, given your record and given the circumstances of this offending, that
is the very minimum we would have imposed for this offending. Advocate Bell on your behalf has
submitted that 4 months was excessive for Count 1 given the fact that the other
participants were apparently dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court by way
of fine. We cannot know the full
details of their circumstances but on the face of it they appear to have been
dealt with very leniently. The fact
is, with your record and the way you were behaving that evening, we cannot
possibly say that 4 months would be too much and that a total of 16 months
would be too much. In saying that,
we acknowledge Advocate Bell’s point that a full discount for the guilty
plea should be given, whereas the Crown say they have not. But we consider that even allowing for a
full discount, 16 months would still be an appropriate sentence for the
totality of your offending. As the
Court said in AG v Poingdestre [2013] JRC 073
“the Court has made it
absolutely plain time and time again, that violence on the streets of St Helier
will normally result in a custodial sentence being imposed, particularly where
there is the aggravating feature of drunkenness”
And that describes what you did in relation
to Count 1 and although it was not on the streets of St Helier, drink also
played an aggravating feature in relation to Count 2 where, of course, you
assaulted the victim, your partner, in the sanctity of her home.
6.
Despite
this the Crown has moved for a non-custodial sentence in this case. We have had to consider very carefully
whether that is the appropriate course of action because, on the face of it,
you deserve to go to prison. But,
we have just been persuaded that we should proceed by way of a non-custodial
sentence. The main reasons for that
are as follow:
(i)
You have
already served the equivalent of a 12 month sentence of imprisonment. If a sentence of 16 months were imposed
that would mean you simply spending a further 2 and a half to 3 months in
prison which would be without the benefit of the measures which will be
undertaken under a Probation Order to address your offending, and we think that
would not be in the interests of society.
(ii) You say that this is a turning point in your
life. We hope very much that you
mean that, but on the basis that you do wish to turn things around this seems
the right time to give you an opportunity to prove it and the best way of doing
that, we think, will be to impose a Probation Order which will offer you help
and assistance in trying you to achieve a change in your life.
(iii) There is a strong recommendation from the Probation
Service in the report; in particular they say that you have agreed that you
should attend the ADAPT course which is designed to address domestic violence
and we think that would be a positive step.
(iv) You have the strong support of your
partner. We have read her letter,
we have read your letter of remorse and we take both of those matters into
account.
7.
So putting
everything together, together with the other points made by Advocate Bell, we
agree that it is not necessary on this occasion to send you to prison. But despite what your advocate has said,
we think there should be a period of Community Service to mark the gravity of
your offending but we do think a greater allowance should be made for the time
which you have spent in prison, which after all is approximately three quarters
of the prison sentence which would otherwise be imposed.
8.
On Count 1
you are sentenced to 60 hours’ Community Service. On Count 2 you are sentenced to 60
hours’ Community Service, concurrent together with a Probation Order for
12 months. We state that the total
prison sentence we would have had in mind if we had not imposed this is 16
months.
9.
We turn
next to the Exclusion Order. Your
advocate has urged we should not make it, as it is not necessary. We cannot accept that. We think that if you are correct in
saying that this is a turning point and you are determined to address your
alcohol problem, then barring you from in particular 1st category
premises and others will be of assistance rather than anything else. So we are going to impose an Exclusion
Order but we think a period of 6 months from today would be appropriate.
10. So the order is that you are excluded from 1st,
2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th category
premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at
Elizabeth Harbour, any licenced premises at which your partner resides or which
you need to attend for the purposes of your employment and we also exclude the
Royal Yacht for 24th and 25th January so you are free to
attend there on these dates.
11. You have been extraordinarily fortunate. As I have said earlier, what you did
would almost always attract a prison sentence. So take advantage of this opportunity; in
particular the Probation Order. You
will be told to do a lot of things by the Probation Order, to attend meetings,
to attend courses and so on. You
must obey everything that the Probation Officer says to the letter, because if
you do not you will be brought back here and then there can only be one answer,
you will go back to prison.
Similarly with Community Service. You must attend it promptly and carry out
the work assiduously, because again if you do not you will be brought back here
and if you are brought back here for a breach of either order we cannot see any
alternative but an immediate prison sentence. So it is up to you. You have this opportunity. You say that you wish to change and deal
with your problems of alcohol and aggression. We hope very much that you will take
advantage of these orders and not reappear before us.
Authorities
AG
v Poingdestre [2013] JRC 073.
AG
v Wolstenholme and Ors. [2006] JRC 022
Harrison
v AG [2004] JLR 111
AG
v Crabtree [2017] JRC143
AG
v Duffy [2017] JRC 131
AG
v Rawlinson [2019] JRC 121
AG
v Nicolle [2018] JRC 139
AG
v R [2018] JRC 205A