Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Allen and Buchanan [2016] JRC 093 (06 May 2016)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the seriousness of the assault, use of a weapon, and the impact on the victim, a custodial sentence would normally be imposed. However, due to Allen's lack of previous convictions, genuine remorse, positive character, and significant mitigation, an exceptional non-custodial sentence was justified. Buchanan's lesser role and signs of reform justified a financial penalty rather than custody.

Court disposition

Allen: probation and community service with compensation order; Buchanan: fine.

Orders

  • Allen: 3 month Probation Order
  • Allen: 240 hours Community Service Order (equivalent to 18 months custody)
  • Allen: compensation to victim of £2,400 payable within 18 months, 3 months custody in default
  • Buchanan: fine of £500 payable within 6 months, 6 months custody in default
  • No other orders made

02

Material facts

Parties

Allen

Defendant

Buchanan

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Victim

Victim

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mitigation advanced for both defendants included guilty pleas, remorse, lack of recent or any previous convictions, positive character references, and impact on career prospects. For Allen, arguments focused on exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence. For Buchanan, arguments highlighted responsibility taken and efforts to reform.
Respondent
The Crown accepted the bases of plea and referenced aggravating factors including use of a weapon, group assault, and alcohol involvement. The Crown referred to the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the injuries.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court policy

    Drink-fuelled violence will normally attract a custodial sentence.

  2. 02

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

    Custodial sentence for young offenders only if no other appropriate way to deal with the offender.

  3. 03

    UK Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines (Compensation), Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012

    Compensation for injuries should follow guideline sums for specific injuries.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the seriousness of the assault, use of a weapon, and the impact on the victim, a custodial sentence would normally be imposed. However, due to Allen's lack of previous convictions, genuine remorse, positive character, and significant mitigation, an exceptional non-custodial sentence was justified. Buchanan's lesser role and signs of reform justified a financial penalty rather than custody.

Obiter and limits

  • Alcohol is an aggravating factor in violent offences.
  • Picking up a bottle in a fight removes control over the consequences, which can be life-threatening.
  • The effect of the offence on the victim and the offender's career prospects are relevant to sentencing.

Court disposition

Allen: probation and community service with compensation order; Buchanan: fine.

  • Allen: 3 month Probation Order
  • Allen: 240 hours Community Service Order (equivalent to 18 months custody)
  • Allen: compensation to victim of £2,400 payable within 18 months, 3 months custody in default
  • Buchanan: fine of £500 payable within 6 months, 6 months custody in default
  • No other orders made

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2016] JRC 093

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Allen, you are to be sentenced on Indictment containing one count of grave and criminal assault. Buchanan, you are to be sentenced for committing a breach of the peace by fighting. Both of these offences arose out of the same incident and involved the same victim but they are different in nature. Allen took part in an assault in concert with others and her actions included striking the victim over the head with a bottle. Buchanan was involved in a fight. She struck one blow to the victim and wrestled with her.

2. We do not need to go into the detail of exactly what happened. You both fall to be sentenced on the facts set out in your respective bases of pleas which the Crown has accepted as do we. You also both fall to be dealt with as though the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you. Buchanan, because it does apply to you, you are 20 years of age, and Allen because you were 20 at the time of the offence.

3. Buchanan, we deal firstly with you. Your culpability lies in the punch that you gave to the victim and then wrestling with her. You bear some responsibility for the way the incident unfolded. Your record is not a good one, although we note that your most recent conviction for violence was in 2011. You were, at that time, under the age of 18. There are signs that we see that you are pulling yourself together. You have the benefit of your guilty plea and we have read, with care, the letters written on your behalf and of course, we take full cognisance of the contents of the social enquiry report. You appear to have taken responsibility eventually for your actions.

4. We think that it is appropriate to deal with you by way of a fine and you are fined £500 with a custodial alternative of 6 months. That is to be paid within the 6 month period which I think accords with your ability to pay it as explained by your counsel.

5. Allen, you participated in a very unpleasant attack. You did so as part of a group on an outnumbered victim who sustained a number of painful injuries including a facial fracture. We have noted the effect of this attack on her and you played a significant role when you used a wine bottle and struck her over the head. That was a deliberate act in the sense that you went and found the bottle. You, and indeed your victim, were extremely fortunate that the injury caused was not much more serious. When people pick up bottles they lose any control over the consequences and the injuries that may be caused. They could have been life-threatening.

6. We have read the statement of the victim and we can well understand her anxiety and the effects that the assault had on her. Clearly alcohol was a factor and that, as the Court has said on many occasions in the past, is an aggravating factor. Your comments after the event, as referred to by the Crown, do not in any way paint you in a good light.

7. However, you have much to call upon by way of mitigation. You have no previous convictions and the many letters written on your behalf paint a very different picture of you than your actions have suggested. You have demonstrated remorse and we accept that that remorse is genuine.

8. The Court's policy, often stated, is clear. Drink-fuelled violence will normally attract a custodial sentence. The Young Offenders Law, to which we have regard, requires us to impose a custodial sentence only if we are satisfied that there is no other way of dealing with you appropriately. We note amongst all of the other matters of mitigation that have been put forward on your behalf, the effect that your actions have already had on your career prospects, the prejudice of your vocational choice, and the change in your attitude to alcohol and the company that you keep. In our view those matters and the matters disclosed in the social enquiry report can allow us, exceptionally, to deal with this other than by custodial means.

9. We impose a 3 month Probation Order. You will carry out 240 hours' Community Service Order, which is the direct equivalent to 18 months' in custody.

10. You will pay compensation to your victim in the sum of £2,400, which is the guideline sum in connection with the facial fracture that she sustained during the course of the general assault, and you will pay that within 18 months with a 3 month custodial sentence in default in the event that that is not paid.

11. We make no other order. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 AG-v-Cameron [2008] JLR N44. AG-v-Conway [2008] JRC 060. AG-v- Herve [2011] JRC 086 . AG-v-Hogg [2011] JRC 223 . AG-v- Ewens , Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127 . Licenced Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998. Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994. UK Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines (Compensation). Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012. Page Last Updated: 17 May 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111

Case cited

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JLR N44

Case cited

AG-v-Conway [2008] JRC 060

Case cited

AG-v-Herve [2011] JRC 086

Case cited

AG-v-Hogg [2011] JRC 223

Case cited

AG-v-Ewens, Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Licenced Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.