AG -v- Furzer and Hansford [2011] JRC 006 (14 January 2011)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Mr Furzer, you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains one count of grave and criminal assault. Mr Hansford, you are here to be sentenced for grave and criminal assault and for resisting arrest by the police.

2. The Court has found this to be an extremely difficult case which is obvious from the time that we have spent outside considering what is the right sentence for you. We have had the opportunity of watching the CCTV footage and there is absolutely no doubt that the offence which you committed, the grave and criminal assault, was a cowardly attack by two of you on a single person. It was undoubtedly the result of drinking too much and it has been said by this Court many times that the excessive consumption of alcohol is not a mitigating factor. It does not make it better, it makes the offence worse. It is not surprising that that is so because we are told by the health authorities regularly that the consumption of alcohol in this Island is excessive and what it leads to is a lack of ability to exercise self-control and self-discipline, or it can do, and that is exactly what has happened here.

3. The Court has also said many times that for drunken violence on the streets of St Helier at night, the right sentence is a sentence of custody. In the case of both of you, we treat you as being of good character, despite the previous convictions that you have. You have both expressed your remorse for what you did. Some of the comments made by your counsel may not have been consistent with that remorse and I hope very much that you do feel the remorse that you have expressed, because you should feel sorry for behaving in the way that you have.

4. We treat you both as though the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applied to you. Mr Hansford, in your case it does, because you are 20. Mr Furzer, you were 20 at the time of the offence and so we treat you in that way now. Article 4 of that law says that we should not pass a custodial sentence unless we consider that there is no other method of dealing with you appropriately. We have considered this very anxiously and the nature of the CCTV footage which we have seen and, exceptionally, we have reached the view that in the light of the particular footage that we have seen, it is possible with you to avoid a custodial sentence. The law is there because it requires the Court to recognise that a young person's judgement is sometimes immature and a young person is likely to make a mistake, and let there be no doubt about it, on this occasion you made the first serious mistake by drinking too much. And the consequences of making mistakes can be very serious; in both of your cases the consequences of this mistake could easily have been a custodial sentence which would put your jobs and your future career at risk. By a whisker you are going to avoid that.

5. The Court considers that it is important that there is a serious element of punishment for the offence that you have committed.

6. Accordingly we are going to sentence you Mr Furzer, to 180 hours' community service. The sentence which would have been imposed in lieu would be 12 months' imprisonment. In addition there will be an Exclusion Order. You are not to go into any licensed premises for a period of 12 months; the exception only will be 6 th category licenses, which sell food. It means that you cannot go to a public house and you cannot go to a restaurant which has a licence, for 12 months. That is a serious element of punishment and you are being punished for the offence that you have committed.

7. Mr Hansford, the offending which you have committed is worse than that of Mr Furzer, it is worse for two reasons. First of all you joined in so it was two against one, and secondly it is worse because you kicked and then subsequently, quite deliberately, stamped on the head of the victim. We are going to sentence you to 215 hours' community service or, in lieu, it would have been 15 months' youth detention and the same 12 months Exclusion Order. In relation to the offence of resisting the officer in the execution of his duty, we are going to sentence you to 50 hours' community service or 1 month's youth detention, concurrent, so that makes a total of 215 hours' community service. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046. Licensed Premises (Exclusion of certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998. AG-v-Baltrusaitis & Tecuceanu [2010] JRC 194 . AG-v-Q R and Baptista [2010] JRC 227. Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII