AG -v- Duffy [2017] JRC 131 (18 August 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] JRC 131
- 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
Serious alcohol-fuelled domestic violence and affray, including threats with knives against police, require custodial sentences and protective orders despite mitigation.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- Exclusion Order from specified licensed premises for 12 months post-release
- Restraining Order for 5 years
- Forfeiture and destruction of knives
- Total sentence of 30 months' imprisonment
02
Material facts
Parties
Unknown (Defendant)
DefendantThe Crown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment (total): months 30
- Exclusion Order Duration: months 12
- Restraining Order Duration: years 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentencing for domestic violence and affray
- 02
imposition of exclusion and restraining orders
- 03
forfeiture and destruction of weapons
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Mitigation presented included early guilty plea, full cooperation, and positive character references when alcohol is not involved.
- Respondent
- Crown sought custodial sentences, exclusion order from licensed premises, restraining order, and forfeiture of knives due to seriousness of offences and public protection.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment text
Court takes incidents of domestic violence very seriously and marks offences against police officers with imprisonment.
- 02
Judgment text
Sentences may be mitigated by early guilty plea and cooperation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Serious alcohol-fuelled domestic violence and affray, including threats with knives against police, require custodial sentences and protective orders despite mitigation.
Obiter and limits
- A person is entitled to feel safe in their own home.
- There is another side to the defendant's character when alcohol is not involved.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- Exclusion Order from specified licensed premises for 12 months post-release
- Restraining Order for 5 years
- Forfeiture and destruction of knives
- Total sentence of 30 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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced today for two counts of common assault, one of grave and criminal assault and one of affray. All of those counts were alcohol-fuelled and the assaults were part of a course of domestic violence carried out by you on your then partner.
2. As the Court has said on many occasions it takes incidents of domestic violence very seriously indeed. A person is entitled to feel safe in their own home.
3. The affray also was particularly serious involving as it did threats with knives against police officers who were going about their public duty and the Court has, on many occasions, also said that in general it marks such offences with a term of imprisonment.
4. We do not need to go into the detail of this offending, that has been set out fully in the summary given by the Crown, but this was undoubtedly a terrifying experience for your former partner and others who witnessed it.
5. We have considered carefully the reports and we note the difficulties that you have faced. We have read your letter and those of your father and son and others carefully and we understand that there is another side to your character that shows when alcohol is not involved. You have the benefit of an early guilty plea, which is of real value in a case such as this, and you have the benefit of your full cooperation.
6. Nevertheless, the public must be protected and the offences, which are serious, must receive an appropriate sanction. We were, as you may have heard when the Court came in, considering increasing the conclusions moved for by the Crown but in the light of the mitigation that has been communicated to us both by your counsel and within the letters and the reports we think, instead, that we will largely impose the sentence that the Crown has moved for in its conclusions. We will make some variation to Count 1 to reflect the Court's view of the seriousness but that will not affect the overall sentence.
7. We impose an Exclusion Order in the terms sought by the Crown, you are accordingly excluded from 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 7 th Category licenced premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, the Arts Centre, the Airport, the Ferry Terminal and the Opera House for a period of 12 months to take effect on the day on which you are released from prison.
8. In the light of the effect on your former partner we also impose a Restraining Order in the terms sought by the Crown to run for a period of 5 years from today.
9. As I have said, we propose to sentence along the lines proposed by the Crown with this exception: with regard to Count 1 you are sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment to run concurrent with Count 3, for Count 2; 4 months' imprisonment to run concurrent with Count 3, Count 3; 15 months' imprisonment to run consecutively to Count 4 and Count 4; 15 months' imprisonment to run consecutively, a total of 30 months' imprisonment.
10. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the knives. Authorities AG-v-Crabtree [2014] JRC 165A . AG-v-Smale [2011] JRC 156A . AG-v-Heard [2012] JRC 132 . AG-v-Da Silva [2016] JRC 046 . AG-v-Mears [2008] JRC 217 . AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104 . Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998. Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment)(Jersey) Law 2008. Page Last Updated: 17 Oct 2017 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.