Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Bisson [2015] JRC 073 (17 April 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A custodial sentence is inevitable due to the seriousness of the injuries caused by the defendant's violent conduct, notwithstanding provocation, remorse, and a guilty plea. The quality of the victim's life has been materially affected, justifying imprisonment and an Exclusion Order.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 2 years' imprisonment
  • Exclusion Order for 2 years following release from custody
  • No Compensation Order

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Bisson

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecution

Victim (unnamed)

Victim

Amounts and remedies

  • Term of Imprisonment: 2
  • Exclusion Order Period: 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
References were made to the defendant's remorse, guilty plea, positive character references, and the significant provocation during the incident. Counsel also cited cases of one-punch manslaughter to argue for a lesser sentence.
Respondent
The Crown sought a custodial sentence and an Exclusion Order, emphasizing the seriousness and long-term impact of the victim's injuries.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Referenced cases of one-punch manslaughter and sentencing guidelines

    Sanctity and quality of life are important considerations in sentencing for violent offences.

  2. 02

    General sentencing principles and referenced authorities

    Provocation and remorse may mitigate but do not eliminate the need for custodial sentences in serious assaults.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A custodial sentence is inevitable due to the seriousness of the injuries caused by the defendant's violent conduct, notwithstanding provocation, remorse, and a guilty plea. The quality of the victim's life has been materially affected, justifying imprisonment and an Exclusion Order.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted the defendant's prior record for violence linked to alcohol, though the last offence was almost 10 years ago.
  • The court declined to make a Compensation Order despite the devastating impact on the victim and his partner.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 2 years' imprisonment
  • Exclusion Order for 2 years following release from custody
  • No Compensation Order

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

[2015] JRC 073

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. In common with many courts who have had to consider this type of matter before, we have found this particular case very difficult. Mr Bisson, you are to be sentenced today in respect of a single count of grave and criminal assault. Both you and the victim, a friend of many years standing, work for the same plastering company, your relationship was close but occasionally volatile and you regularly socialised together. During the staff Christmas party both you and the victim had been drinking heavily and after that meal an argument broke out between you and your friend. That argument continued after the party when you and your friend continued into the street. The argument went on and others tried to intervene. Suddenly you struck a single, very forceful blow to your friends head. He was knocked out and fell heavily to the pavement, striking his head. You left the scene.

2. The consequences for him were profound. He suffered a fractured skull and required intensive and urgent treatment. He will continue to suffer the consequences of your punch for a long time, very possibly for the rest of his life. His prognosis is uncertain but his injuries are serious and they are long-term.

3. We accept that you did not intend the consequences of your punch. We accept that you are remorseful and that you will have to live with the consequences of what you have done. We understand that there was significant provocation in the sense that you had both been arguing but it was not violent provocation and the fact is that you, whilst under the influence of a substantial amount of alcohol, resorted to violence with such far-reaching consequences. We have read the statement of the victim's partner, he cannot of course, because of his injuries write one himself, and it is clear that the consequences for them have been devastating.

4. We have listened to everything that your counsel has said; we note the references that speak well of you and, of course, we note your guilty plea. You do not have a clean record for violence and violence it appears is linked with alcohol in your case, but we note that the last violent offending was almost 10 years ago.

5. The Court has given very anxious consideration to all of the factors and to the cases that have been put before us but, in our view, a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable. Reference has been made by your counsel to cases of one-punch manslaughter in which the Court has reflected the importance of the sanctity of life but the Court also wishes to have regard to the quality of life and the quality of the life of your victim has been materially affected.

6. You are sentenced to a term of 2 years' imprisonment.

7. The Court also makes an Exclusion Order in the terms sought by the Crown for 2 year period following your release from custody.

8. The Court declines to make a Compensation Order. Authorities Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 . McManus v AG [2001] JLR N 27, JCA 118 and JRC 61. AG v O'Brien [1995] JRC 226. Holden v AG [2003] JCA 17 and JRC 170. Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey 3rd Edition. Page Last Updated: 24 Jan 2018 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

McManus v AG [2001] JLR N 27, JCA 118 and JRC 61

Case cited

AG v O'Brien [1995] JRC 226

Case cited

Holden v AG [2003] JCA 17 and JRC 170

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.