Jersey Judgment

AG v BAGLIN [2003] JRC 085 (23 May 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A sentence of less than 12 months for an assault of this kind upon a prison officer cannot be imposed; all sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a total of 12 months' imprisonment.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 1 week's imprisonment for larceny
  • 1 month's imprisonment for possession of cannabis
  • 12 months' imprisonment for assault on a prison officer
  • all sentences to run concurrently, total 12 months' imprisonment

02

Material facts

Parties

Baglin

Defendant Counsel: defence counsel

Prison Officer Mound

Victim

Crown

Prosecution Counsel: Crown Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence for Larceny: week 1
  • Sentence for Possession of Cannabis: month 1
  • Sentence for Assault on Prison Officer: month 12
  • Total Imprisonment: month 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Defence counsel submitted that the sentences should be concurrent and took into account time spent in custody on remand.
Respondent
Crown Advocate emphasized the seriousness of assaulting a prison officer and the need for significant custodial penalties.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's reasoning

    Assaults on prison officers carrying out their duties are completely unacceptable and should attract significant custodial penalties.

  2. 02

    Court's reasoning

    Concurrent sentences may be appropriate where offences arise from the same incident or circumstances.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A sentence of less than 12 months for an assault of this kind upon a prison officer cannot be imposed; all sentences to run concurrently, resulting in a total of 12 months' imprisonment.

Obiter and limits

  • The prison officer acted unwisely in making any comment given the background, but this did not amount to legal provocation.
  • Prisoners must expect severe punishment if they assault those who guard and care for them.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 1 week's imprisonment for larceny
  • 1 month's imprisonment for possession of cannabis
  • 12 months' imprisonment for assault on a prison officer
  • all sentences to run concurrently, total 12 months' imprisonment

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

[2003] JRC 085

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This defendant is to be sentenced for 3 offences, the most serious of which is an assault upon a prison officer. It is not disputed that Baglin punched Prison Officer Mound in the face and subsequently several times to the body. On the face of it, this was an unprovoked attack upon an officer carrying out his duty, but there was a history to the assault which we should record so as to make it perfectly plain upon what basis we are passing sentence.

2. The history involves a complaint about the Prison Officer by Baglin which was found to be unsubstantiated but which left Baglin with a grievance about the system of dealing with complaints. Subsequently Baglin received a pair of track suit bottoms which were too small and were returned. A second pair were sent and were found on arrival to be torn. The prison officer had asked Baglin how the new track suit bottoms were. The prison officer asserted at a Newton Hearing that this was a genuine enquiry in ignorance of the tear. Baglin asserted that the question was put in a sneering kind of way. At a Newton Hearing the Jurats accepted the evidence of the prison officer and Crown witnesses but also found that the prison officer had acted unwisely, in view of the background, in making any comment at all.

3. This was not provocation in any accepted sense but we have taken account of the finding of the Court at the Newton Hearing. Having said that, it is completely unacceptable to assault prison officers carrying out their duties. Even common assaults of this kind should attract significant custodial penalties. Prisoners must expect that if they assault those that have the guard and care of them they will be severely punished. But for the comments of the Jurats at the Newton Hearing we would have thought that the conclusions were too low.

4. We have taken into consideration the comments of the Crown Advocate and of defence counsel as to the time spent in custody on remand and the fact that the sentence for the assault cannot ante-date the offence itself. We think, nevertheless, the conclusions are right and that a sentence of less than 12 months for an assault of this kind upon a prison officer cannot be imposed. We will, however, accept the submission of defence counsel and we will make all the sentences concurrent.

5. You are therefore sentenced on the count of larceny, to 1 week's imprisonment; on the count dealing with possession of cannabis, 1 month's imprisonment; and on the assault on the prison officer to 12 months' imprisonment, all those sentences will be concurrent making a total of 12 months' imprisonment. Authorities A. G. -v- Letchford (6 th September, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/173A]. R -v- Ali (1998) 2 Cr. App. R.123. Page Last Updated: 23 Jun 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.

A. G. v. Letchford (6th September, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/173A]

Case cited

R v. Ali (1998) 2 Cr. App. R.123

Case cited

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.