AG -v- Egan [2009] JRC 162 (14 August 2009)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The facts of this case are unusual. The defendant approached a plain clothes police officer outside the Royal Yacht Hotel and asked him if he wanted any "MDMA" which he said he had secreted internally and could go to the toilet to retrieve. Needless to say he was arrested. At the Police Station he was initially calm and rational but his demeanour became aggressive and obstructive. He repeatedly spat at the walls and floor of the cells and then at the officers. He then urinated into a cup which he threw at a female police officer, which caught her head on, going over her eyes, face and upper clothing and contaminating her body armour. The urine caused the police officer's eyes to be sore because if its acidic quality and they had to be washed out with a saline solution by the Police Doctor. The possibility of infection, now removed, has understandably caused her concern. We have read her impact statement and it needs little imagination to appreciate the disgusting and violating nature of this assault.

2. No drugs were found on the defendant after an examination and none were found in his accommodation. The prosecution accept therefore, that he had none and in reality, was apparently attempting to raise money.

3. The defendant is 28, single and unemployed with a history of illicit drug-taking, heavy drinking and mental health problems. Mr Gafoor describes him as someone with an itinerant lifestyle with few stable social relationships. He has a bad record and his criminality occurs in spite of his alcohol and drug use. He has been assessed by Dr Hendricks and is not currently suffering from any escalating psychiatric risks. The Crown have sensibly decided not to treat this as a drug trafficking case 4. In terms of mitigation, Mr Jones has presented a letter from the defendant expressing remorse for the assault and in Court we are told that he is now also remorseful for the drugs offence. He has pleaded guilty on Indictment although he did reserve his plea in the Magistrate's Court.

5. We have taken the mitigation into account and, notwithstanding, regard the conclusions of the Crown as correct. We reiterate what the then Deputy Bailiff said in the case of AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A that the Court takes very seriously any assault on a police officer doing his or her duty. Police officers are entitled to look to the Court for protection in the difficult task which they undertake.

6. On count 2 you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, on count 3 you are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive, that is a total of 1 year and 9 months' imprisonment. Authorities AG-v-Letchford 2000/173A. Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626 . Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Blackstone's Criminal Practice (2008 edition). Archbold (Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2009 edition). Page Last Updated: 29 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII