AG v J 13-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 178 (13 September 2019)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced for one count of illegal entry, two counts of common assault and one count of malicious damage. We do not need to go into the full details because they have been referred to at appropriate length by the Crown in the Statements of Facts which have been read out.

2. This was an illegal entry of an occupied dwelling at night, for the express purpose of an unprovoked attack on a victim ("Victim B"), during the course of which you also assaulted your former girlfriend ("Victim A"). A young child was present in the room when you commenced your assault.

3. We fully understand the background to this and that you had been badly hurt when you found out that your former girlfriend's child was not yours, although you had been in a relationship with her for approximately 4 years, were present at the birth and had formed an attachment to the baby. That is from our perspective an important context. However, that does not in any way excuse your actions which were not provoked by any immediate action on the part of Victim B nor indeed on the part of Victim A. That you broke in when they were sleeping and you began to punch Victim B is both cowardly and sinister. It must have been a totally terrifying experience for them, and they suffered injuries as a result in the form of bruises and abrasions, and we have of course read their victim impact statements. You were fuelled by alcohol which is of course an aggravating feature and not a mitigating feature.

4. Illegal entry of a private dwelling, especially an occupied one at night, is always viewed by the Court as very serious indeed, as it involves a violation of a person's home, a place of safety and sanctuary for them. We agree with the Crown's assessment of features of the assault and we also agree with the Crown's identification of those aggravating features of prior threats and alcohol.

5. By way of mitigation we of course take into account your guilty plea, your previous good character and the references which speak to a very different side of your character. We note that you are assessed as being to a low and moderate risk of offending. We have to say that we do not feel able to accept your counsel's invitation to deal with this on a non-custodial basis. We do, however, because of the domestic context and the almost unique circumstances of this offending, believe that we can make a discount from the Conclusions moved for by the Crown.

6. Accordingly you are sentenced as follows: with regard to Count 1, illegal entry, 2 years' imprisonment. With regard to Count 2, common assault, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. Count 3, common assault, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. Count 5, malicious damage, 2 week's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 making a total of 2 years' imprisonment.

7. We are satisfied that we should make the restraining orders moved for by the Crown and indeed you do not oppose that in principle. We think that it is in fact as much in your interests as much as anybody else's that we make them for an indefinite period, which we do and were merely amend them to say that the defendant be prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, including by social media, Victim A and her child, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable.

8. We turn now to the question of compensation. In our view, subject to the provision of receipts, the items claimed by Victim A we allow, that is for the bedroom items in the total sum of £297. We do not think that it is appropriate to provide for a replacement iPhone for Victim B and we allow £200 for repairs. With regard to the compensation for personal injuries suffered we do not propose to make an order in the form requested and instead with regard to Victim A we order the payment of £250 and the same sum with regard to Victim B. We direct that they should be paid at the rate of £200 per month, starting 3 months after your release from custody with 2 weeks imprisonment in default.

9. That is the sentence of the Court. Authorities Whelan on Aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey, 3rd Edition , Extract Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111 AG v Da Silva [1997] JRC 218 AG v Gouveia [2013] JRC 132 AG v Higham [2017] JRC 199 AG v Poingdestre [2018] JRC 029 Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994 Crime (Disorderly Conduct Harassment)(Jersey) Law 2008 Sentencing Council Guidelines "Suggested starting points for physical and mental injuries" Page Last Updated: 25 Sep 2019 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII