AG v Bevis [2001] JRC 188 (31 August 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 188
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A prisoner who commits an assault in prison should normally receive a consecutive sentence to ensure effective punishment and deterrence, notwithstanding mitigating factors such as provocation and rehabilitation efforts.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence already being served
02
Material facts
Parties
Bevis
Defendant Counsel: Miss DeaconThe Crown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term: months 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for assault committed by a prisoner in custody
- 02
Whether sentence should be concurrent or consecutive
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Miss Deacon argued for a concurrent sentence, citing provocation and the defendant's efforts in prison, referencing the Ferguson case.
- Respondent
- The Crown accepted the defendant's version of events and modified its view of the facts, but did not explicitly argue for concurrency.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning in this judgment
Where a prisoner commits an assault in prison, the sentence should normally be consecutive to provide effective punishment and deterrence.
- 02
Court's reasoning in this judgment
Provocation and efforts at rehabilitation may be considered in mitigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A prisoner who commits an assault in prison should normally receive a consecutive sentence to ensure effective punishment and deterrence, notwithstanding mitigating factors such as provocation and rehabilitation efforts.
Obiter and limits
- The youth of the offender in Ferguson likely influenced the decision for a concurrent sentence in that case.
- The court is reluctant to add to long sentences but must support prison authorities in maintaining order.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence already being served
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Bevis, you fall to be sentenced for an assault on your version of events, which the Crown has accepted and that is that when threatened by the victim in his cell at La Moye with a dirty needle, you punched him once and then pushed him to the floor. As a result he suffered a laceration of the inside lip and an abrasion to his chin.
2. In mitigation, you have pleaded guilty. It is clear that there was provocation for this assault and we also note and support the efforts you have made since you have been in prison. As a result of this Miss Deacon has urged that any sentence imposed should be concurrent and she has referred, in particular, to the case of Ferguson (28 th August, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/170], although we have to say that the youth of the offender probably played a substantial part in that case, in that the court no doubt did not wish to add to the long sentence already being served by a young man.
3. You are also serving a long sentence and the Court is always reluctant to add to such a sentence, but the prison authorities are entitled to the support of the Court in their attempts to maintain order and discipline. In our view, where a prisoner commits an assault in prison he should normally expect that any sentence will be consecutive so that there is, in reality, an effective punishment and an effective deterrent for such behaviour. We think that the sentence in this case must, therefore, be consecutive. However, we think that the Crown has modified its view of the facts, as compared with those upon which it based its conclusions and we think the right sentence is 3 months' imprisonment. So the sentence is 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to that to which you are already serving. Authorities AG-v-Ferguson (28th August 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/170] AG-v-Leitch (21st August 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/177] Page Last Updated: 17 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.