Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Martins [2015] JRC 016 (23 January 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The offences were too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence, even considering the defendant's youth and mitigation. The defendant's continued presence in Jersey was found detrimental to the public good, and deportation was not disproportionate given his limited ties to the Island.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 18 months' youth detention on Count 1
  • 18 months' youth detention on Count 2, concurrent
  • 6 months' youth detention on Count 5, concurrent
  • recommendation for deportation
  • advisement of possible supervision upon release

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Bell

Amounts and remedies

  • Youth Detention (months): 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown argued that the offences were too serious for a non-custodial sentence, referencing Harrison v AG, and sought 18 months' youth detention. The Crown also argued that the defendant's continued presence in Jersey was detrimental to the public good and recommended deportation.
Respondent
The defendant, through Advocate Bell, relied on mitigation including early guilty plea, cooperation with police, good character, youth, abstinence from alcohol since the offence, remorse, and personal ties to Jersey. It was argued that deportation would be disproportionate.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

    Seriousness of drunken violence in public justifies custodial sentence even for young offenders.

  2. 02

    Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462; AG v De Barros [2013] JRC 079

    Deportation may be recommended if continued presence is detrimental to the public good and deportation is not disproportionate to convention rights.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The offences were too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence, even considering the defendant's youth and mitigation. The defendant's continued presence in Jersey was found detrimental to the public good, and deportation was not disproportionate given his limited ties to the Island.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant's low risk of reconviction is attributed to his claimed abstinence from alcohol, but his propensity for violence when drinking remains concerning.
  • The Court takes a very serious view of drunken violence in the streets of St Helier.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 18 months' youth detention on Count 1
  • 18 months' youth detention on Count 2, concurrent
  • 6 months' youth detention on Count 5, concurrent
  • recommendation for deportation
  • advisement of possible supervision upon release

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 016

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant stands to be sentenced for two counts of grave and criminal assault and one count of common assault, all committed on one evening. All of the offences were seen on CCTV and two of them involved unknown victims who did not come forward to complain. They were all ferocious, drink-fuelled assaults involving kicks and punches on near-random strangers, at night in the streets of St Helier, in the presence of members of the public.

2. The defendant is 20 and therefore comes within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 .

3. The Crown, having taken into account and applied the factors in Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 , take the view that these offences are too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence and move for a sentence of 18 months' youth detention.

4. In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty at an early stage and was cooperative with the police. He has, we are told, a good work ethic. He has no previous convictions and is therefore of good character, and as just mentioned, he has the benefit of youth. He tells us that he has abstained from alcohol since this occasion and is remorseful. He is supported today by his girlfriend, who is in Court, and we have letters from him, his sister with whom he lives, his girlfriend and others. The defendant told the police that he had been provoked by the victims but if that is so, we agree with the Crown that his response was disproportionate and entirely without justification.

5. We have considered all of the mitigation put forward by Advocate Bell but the policy of the Court is clear. It takes a very serious view of drunken violence in the streets of St Helier and in our judgment these offences are too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence, notwithstanding the defendant's youth. We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

6. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 month's youth detention, on Count 2: 18 months' youth detention, concurrent, Count 5; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent, which makes a total of 18 months' youth detention and we are required to advise you that on your release you may be subject to a period of supervision.

7. We turn now to the issue of deportation. The defendant has only lived in Jersey for just over a year and his only ties here are his sister and his girlfriend. He is currently unemployed. He is sleeping on a sofa in his sister's one-bedroomed flat. He wishes to remain in Jersey as he says the work prospects are better here.

8. Taking the first part of the test in Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 and assisted by the observations of the Deputy Bailiff in AG v De Barros [2013] JRC 079 , and having taken in to account Advocate Bell's submissions, we do find that the defendant's continued presence in the Island is detrimental to the public good. It is true that he has been assessed at a low risk of reconviction but that is because he says he now rarely drinks but it is clear that when he does drink he has a real propensity for violence. The sheer level of violence in these three separate attacks upon random members of the public, at night, on the streets of St Helier and in the presence of other members of the public is more than sufficient, in our view, to meet the first part of the test.

9. Turning to the second part of the test the defendants ties to the Island, which we have just described, are such that in our view his deportation would not be disproportionate having regard to his convention rights and those of others not before the Court. We do therefore recommend his deportation. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 . Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 . AG-v-De Barros [2013] JRC 079 . AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182 . AG-v-Abreu [2007] JLR N 32. Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 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

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462

Case cited

AG v De Barros [2013] JRC 079

Case cited

AG v Cameron [2008] JRC 182

Case cited

AG v Abreu [2007] JLR N 32

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.