AG -v- McGlone and Others [2010] JRC 081 (23 April 2010)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendants have pleaded guilty to an affray which took place in Mulcaster Street on st October, 2009. The defendants became involved in a fight in a busy street, lasting 3 to 4 minutes, and witnessed by many members of the public. Fortunately no serious injuries were caused. Three of the defendants are under 21 years of age and therefore the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 apply to them, preventing the Court from imposing a sentence of youth detention unless there is no other method of dealing with them.

2. The case is perhaps unusual in that in the main, the defendants are all of good character, are all gainfully employed and studying, they are all involved in pro-social activities and are clearly, deeply ashamed of their conduct. They are all assessed at a low or very low risk of re-offending.

3. As the Court said in AG-v-Burrell [2003] JRC 209 .when determining the gravity of the offence of affray for sentencing purposes it is appropriate to consider:- (i) "The level of violence used; (ii) The scale of the affray; (iii) How many people were involved; and (iv) The extent to which it is pre-meditated or spontaneous. Moreover, every participant has some responsibility for the actions of those with whom he is acting jointly and although it may not be possible to identify the actions of each person individually, they are all contributing to the public fear, which is at the heart of the offence, and must expect to be punished accordingly." 4. We are satisfied that this affray was spontaneous and was not of the most serious type. However, having regard to the CCTV footage which we have been shown, we do regard Schofield as having a greater involvement than the other three defendants in that in our view, he bears greater responsibility for the two bouts of violence that erupted between him and the other three defendants. He is also considerably older and should have known better than to react in the way that he did.

5. Turning to the individual defendants:- McGlone is a keen sportsman playing football at club level. He also enjoys training at a gym and has an Active Card. He is in his second year of an apprenticeship as an electrician and has good prospects. He does have a previous conviction in 2009 for which he was fined and he faces a further minor charge of obstruction which took place subsequently. He comes from a stable family who are supportive of him. He, as I have said, is assessed at a low risk of re-offending.

6. Schofield is the oldest of the defendants and, noting the observations of the Deputy Bailiff in AG-v-O'Shea [2010] JRC 040 , he does not benefit from the mitigation of youth but he has no previous convictions. He has worked for the last five years as a supervisor in a mail order horticultural company. He comes from a stable family background with a pro-social lifestyle and he, as I have already said, is assessed at a low risk of re-offending.

7. O'Donoghue is also a keen footballer, playing for a local team, and comes from a stable background. He also scuba dives with his father. He has no previous convictions. He is currently employed as a labourer but was part way through an application for an air traffic role with the Royal Air Force, having passed the first interview. That has now, as a result of these proceedings, had to be postponed for some two years. He is also attending evening classes in order to complete the certificate of offshore administration and has passed his first module. He is assessed at a very low risk of re-offending.

8. Leatt is also a keen footballer playing for a local senior team and comes from a stable background and he has no previous convictions. He left school with 8 GCES's and is serving an apprenticeship as an electrical engineer. He attends college on a weekly basis and expects to pass his City and Guilds exams and to be fully qualified in 2011. He too is assessed at a low risk of re-offending.

9. All of the defendants have shown real remorse and we accept that their conduct was out of character. None would appear to have a general problem with alcohol consumption but accept that on this occasion alcohol was a contributory factor and all had consumed unusually large amounts; they say they would not have behaved in this way if sober.

10. In general terms we accept the conclusions of the Crown that we can avoid a custodial sentence. It is an inescapable fact however, that alcohol and the culture of binge drinking nearly always plays a part in the violence seen on our streets; the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998 was passed in recognition of this problem and we have determined therefore to impose exclusion orders. An exclusion order strikes at the culture of excessive drinking which affects so many young people today and which leads to the violent offending we so often see on our streets. In our view, the Court should do whatever it can to strike at that culture and an exclusion order is one weapon at its disposal.

11. Finally before turning to the individual sentences, we accept Advocate Haines' submission that the obstruction charge in relation to his client would not ordinarily attract a custodial sentence and should therefore be dealt with by way of a fine.

12. You are therefore sentenced as follows:- McGlone, you will serve 180 hours' community service in relation to the affray charge, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention. In relation to the obstruction charge, you will be fined £200 with 4 days in which to pay, or 2 weeks' in default. That makes a total of 180 hours' community service in your case.

13. Schofield, you will serve 240 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment.

14. O'Donoghue, you will serve 180 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention.

15. Leatt, you will serve 180 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention.

16. In relation to the Exclusion Order, all four defendants, and this is in relation to the affray charge, will be prohibited for a period of 6 months' from this day, from entering all licensed premises holding a 1 st , 4 th and 7 th category licence, or any combination thereof as indicated, with the following exemptions:- (i) we exempt the multiplex cinema; (ii) the Jersey Arts Centre; (iii) the Jersey Airport; (iv) the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour; (v) the Opera House; (vi) any premises which any of the defendants may attend for the purpose of playing football; and (vii) any premises which the defendants may need to attend for the purpose of their employment or study. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. AG-v-Burrell [2003] JRC 209 . AG-v-O'Shea [2010] JRC 040 . Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998. AG-v-Carteret [2009] JRC 242 . AG-v-Gallery [2009] JRC 190. Page Last Updated: 02 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII