Jersey Judgment

AG v Mildren 19-Feb-2021 [2021] JRC 059 (19 February 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the seriousness of the offences, aggravating factors including the victim's pregnancy and the defendant's breach of probation, a custodial sentence totaling two years' imprisonment is warranted.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • Two months' imprisonment for malicious damage
  • Ten months' imprisonment for assault
  • One month's imprisonment for obstructing a police officer (concurrent)
  • Twelve months' imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice (consecutive)
  • Two months' imprisonment for breach of probation order (consecutive)
  • Total sentence: two years' imprisonment
  • Probation order revoked

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Mildren

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Tremoceiro

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment for Malicious Damage: months 2
  • Imprisonment for Assault: months 10
  • Imprisonment for Obstructing a Police Officer: months 1
  • Imprisonment for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice: months 12
  • Imprisonment for Breach of Probation Order: months 2
  • Total Imprisonment: months 24

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Advocate Tremoceiro argued for a non-custodial sentence, highlighting the defendant's intention to address alcohol problems and positive reference from the victim.
Respondent
The Crown submitted that the custodial threshold was clearly passed and advocated for sentences reflecting the aggravating factors and breach of probation.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Authorities cited and sentencing guidelines

    Custodial threshold is passed where offences are serious and probation has failed.

  2. 02

    Authorities cited and sentencing guidelines

    Aggravating factors such as victim's pregnancy and involvement of others in perverting justice increase sentence severity.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the seriousness of the offences, aggravating factors including the victim's pregnancy and the defendant's breach of probation, a custodial sentence totaling two years' imprisonment is warranted.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant should use his time in custody constructively to address alcohol problems and reflect on his responsibilities as a parent.
  • The court hopes the defendant can improve his future conduct despite the current sentence.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

  • Two months' imprisonment for malicious damage
  • Ten months' imprisonment for assault
  • One month's imprisonment for obstructing a police officer (concurrent)
  • Twelve months' imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice (consecutive)
  • Two months' imprisonment for breach of probation order (consecutive)
  • Total sentence: two years' imprisonment
  • Probation order revoked

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

[2021] JRC 059

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. The defendant is here to be sentenced on charges contained in two Indictments. As a result of that offending, he is in breach of a Probation Order and therefore the Probation Order comes to be reviewed.

2. The facts which are presented to us are that on the First Indictment he is charged with malicious damage, with a common assault on his ex-partner and obstructing a police officer.

3. On the Second Indictment he is charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

4. The circumstances around those were that following a night out with friends and drinks the defendant maliciously damaged a door and assaulted the victim, his ex-partner, by grabbing hold of her. There was a scuffle and as set out in his basis of plea he was responsible for the injuries which were noted in the medical report, namely, three abrasions to the left side of the victim's face, the two areas of petechial bruising to her right jaw and bruising above the right clavicle. She was pregnant at the time, as he was aware. He was arrested by police officers, resisted arrest and held in custody. A few days after arrest he was attempting to pervert the course of justice, not only by telephoning the victim himself, asking her to withdraw her complaint of assault but also arranging for others to assist him and contact her with the same suggestion.

5. The defendant's former partner, the victim, has written him a reference which we have considered and taken into account. She describes him as a hands on and very good father and cannot fault his care as a suitable care giver for both sons which they have together and no doubt he would hope to be the same for the daughter which she expecting.

6. Advocate Tremoceiro , who has said everything which could be said on behalf of this defendant, has invited us to impose a non-custodial sentence. He agrees, as we do, that the custodial threshold is clearly passed, so the questions for us are whether we should impose a non-custodial sentence and if not, what is the length of the sentence that we ought to impose for this offending.

7. As far as the assault is concerned, we see clearly that alcohol played an important part in that offending and it is certainly good to read that the defendant is intending to tackle his alcohol problems, if necessary by taking the Antabuse tablets which should assist him in doing so. But of course taking those tablets is only part of the cure, as it were, because what the defendant needs to be sure about is achieving that state of mind which will get him to keep taking the tablets and where he persuades himself that he needs to deal his alcohol problems which clearly he has.

8. There were aggravating factors in relation to the assault. There is unquestionably the aggravation that comes from the drunkenness and unquestionably the aggravation, the seriously aggravating factor, that the victim was pregnant as the defendant knew.

9. As far as the attempt to pervert the course of justice is concerned it took place over a three day period and the aggravating factor there is that it was not only the defendant doing so himself but also involving other people in the attempt to put the victim under pressure to withdraw her complaint.

10. The defendant has been placed on probation previously and those orders have been regrettably unsuccessful. There comes a time in our view where we simply have to accept that probation has not worked and so in the circumstances of this offending we think that the offending not only passes the custodial threshold but that it is right to impose a custodial sentence.

11. We have considered the length of sentenced moved for by the Crown and we think that the Crown has it right and that the length of sentences moved for are the correct sentences to impose.

12. Accordingly, on the Indictments that we have for the count of malicious damage the sentence is two months' imprisonment.

13. On the count of assault, the sentence is 10 months' imprisonment.

14. On the charge of obstructing a police officer the sentence is one months' imprisonment and counts 1 and 3 those sentences will run concurrently with each other, and with the sentence imposed on Count 2.

15. In relation to the attempt to pervert the course of justice the sentence is 12 months' imprisonment which will run consecutively to the sentence on count 2 of assault of the First Indictment that is.

16. That leaves over the Probation Order which was imposed. That order is now revoked, and a sentence of two months' imprisonment consecutive is imposed on that charge, as a result of which the total sentence which the defendant will serve is two years' imprisonment.

17. Mr Mildren , I want to say a couple of things to you. You have said to us through your lawyer, you said all the right things and we accept, that there comes a time in anyone's life when they take stock and this is the time for you to take stock. It really is. We hope that you are going to, the fact that it is a custodial sentence is very significant for you because it means, probably, that you will miss the birth of your daughter and you will not see her for a number of months and your sons you will not see for a number of months.

18. Our view is that you can use this time in prison constructively, in two ways at least. The first is that it gives you the opportunity of more time away from alcohol before you set out to cure that problem when you come out and so you can use that as a positive and we think you should.

19. The second is just to take stock about where you are with your life. You have children that you clearly have a good relationship with and that is great. You need to think about the example you set to them to ensure that they are going to grow up with the benefit that you did not grow up with.

20. We have had regard to everything that is there in the social enquiry report, some of which makes very sad reading indeed. But at the end of the day actions have consequences. You are not being sentenced for what you can do in the future. You are being sentenced for what you have done and that is why we are imposing the sentence that we are. It is not say that we do not think that you can get things right in the future, we really hope that you can and that you use this sentence constructively. I wanted to explain that to you.

21. Two years' imprisonment in all. Authorities Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216 AG v Czarnecki [2020] JRC 177 AG v Le Geyt [2019] JRC 173A AG v Rawlinson [2019] JRC121 AG v Furlong & Furlong [2019] JRC 089 AG v Cooney [2019] JRC 039A AG v Nicolle [2018] JRC 139 AG v Dias [2017] JRC 114 AG v Franco 2001/120 AG v McCool 2000/45 Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing (Third Edition) (extracts) . Page Last Updated: 23 Mar 2021 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.

Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216

Case cited

AG v Czarnecki [2020] JRC 177

Case cited

AG v Le Geyt [2019] JRC 173A

Case cited

AG v Rawlinson [2019] JRC121

Case cited

AG v Furlong & Furlong [2019] JRC 089

Case cited

AG v Cooney [2019] JRC 039A

Case cited

AG v Nicolle [2018] JRC 139

Case cited

AG v Dias [2017] JRC 114

Case cited

AG v Franco 2001/120

Case cited

AG v McCool 2000/45

Case cited

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.