AG v Ritchie (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : Le Cocq) [2025] JRC 264 (17 October 2025)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. On 29 August 2025, this Court sentenced Curtis Hugh Scott Ritchie ("the Defendant") to a total sentence of 240 hours community service being the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment, a probation order for 18 months with a requirement that he abides by all directions of the Probation Service, disqualification from driving for 36 months and a requirement that he re-take the test. We also imposed an exclusion order excluding him, with certain standard exceptions, from first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh category license premises for a period of 18 months. The facts 2. On the evening of 28 April 2025, the Defendant was at a bar in St Helier. Also at that bar was a couple, although they were unknown to the Defendant.

3. The Defendant left the establishment somewhat before the couple. However, on leaving those licensed premises, the couple noted the Defendant on an e-scooter with his dog on a lead.

4. The Defendant kept seeking to interact with the couple and engage with them and although they did not understand his speech, the tone was, in their view, aggressive. At one stage, the Defendant sought to goad the man in the couple into fighting. The Defendant then produced a bottle from his top and threw it at the man. Whilst it did not connect with him, it smashed on the wall behind him. This was charged as a grave and criminal assault and formed Count 1 on the indictment.

5. The gentleman telephoned the police and the Defendant proceeded to drive away on his e-scooter against the flow of traffic. He was subsequently spotted by a police officer who turned on the emergency lights on his car and shouted at the Defendant to stop. He did not.

6. The officer found the Defendant's e-scooter and spotted the Defendant in the bushes behind a granite wall. He came out when the officer asked him to do so. The Defendant was drunk and abusive towards the officer, and he was arrested on suspicion of assault and placed in handcuffs.

7. Two other officers attended to assist with the arrest because of his unruly behaviour. He was asked for a specimen of breath and the Defendant was confrontational and refused to listen. He smelt of liquor and had uncontrolled and slurred speech. He belittled the officers and ignored questions asked of him. He was given several chances to provide a sample, on one occasion telling the officer who requested it to "fuck off". On being arrested for refusing to provide a sample, he became more verbally abusive but then said he would provide a sample although failed to do so.

8. When officers attempted to get the Defendant into the police van, he became obstructive and kicked out towards them and had to be restrained on the floor where he could be controlled. He became extremely aggressive whilst on the floor of the police van. The Defendant continued to lash out. He also spat at a police officer and he was placed in a spit hood. He remained screaming, shouting and swearing throughout being on the floor.

9. Whilst being transported to police custody in the police van, the Defendant punched, headbutted and kicked the cage. He repeatedly threatened one of the officers, telling him he was going to kill him and knock him out.

10. When he arrived at police headquarters, he removed his clothes and several officers were required to seek to get him out of the police van. He was racially abusive to the custody sergeant, referring to her as "a Paki" and a "cunt" on a number of occasions. The police officers had to use additional protective equipment and the Defendant needed to be carried from the police van to his cell. He was also racially abusive to the officer making sure that he was safe in the cell and abusive to officers who came to seek another sample of breath from him.

11. He was interviewed under caution on 29 April and largely gave a no comment interview, save when he saw the body worn camera footage of the spitting incident. He said that the spit hit the floor and did not hit the officer, which he repeated several times.

12. As a result of his actions, in addition to the charge of grave and criminal assault, he was charged with violently resisting arrest (Count 2 on the indictment); assault (Count 3 on the indictment) - two counts of threatening and abusive conduct (Counts 4 and 5 on the indictment); and failure to provide a specimen of breath (Count 6 on the indictment). The Attorney General sought a total sentence of imprisonment of 18 months.

13. As it is to be expected, the Attorney General put before us the case of Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111 , and we have borne in mind the principles set out in that case.

14. The Crown also made the submission that the offence was further aggravated by the consumption of alcohol and put before us the Court's policy in this regard to be found in AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070 , in which the Court said: "This Court has repeatedly said and we repeat again today that those who commit violence in public places in St Helier, particularly if they use weapons, will face substantial sentences. There is too much violence in Jersey, often fuelled by drink and the Court is determined to try and send a message that such matters will not be accepted." 15. It is established policy that an assault on a police officer whilst they are carrying out their duty is a matter treated seriously by this Court. In AG v Chevalier [2024] JRC 062 the Court said: "The police acting in the execution of their duties are entitled to the protection of the Court." 16. It is also well-established that the Court will take spitting very seriously. In the case of AG v Chmielinski [2025] JRC 086 the Court said: "Spitting at a police officer was a particularly disgusting offence and as the Court has previously noted spitting also carries the risk of serious infection being transmitted and is potentially very serious indeed. The police officer was merely doing his job serving the public and is entitled to the Court's protection." 17. The use of threatening or abusive words is covered by the Crime (Public Order) (Jersey) Law 2024 . Guidelines indicate that the following are relevant aggravating factors: (i) Intoxication; (ii) Motivation of hostility based on legally protected characteristic; and (iii) Offences targeted at the police.

18. We do not need to go into all of the aggravating characteristics that mark these offences. It is clear that intoxication is one, as is the racial motivation and sustained violence of both the assault and the Defendant's resistance of arrest.

19. He has the benefit of guilty pleas at the first appearance.

20. We have read the psychiatric report and it is clear that the Defendant presents with symptoms for post-traumatic stress disorder because of exposure to traumatic events associated with his past involvement with paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland.

21. He was diagnosed with ADHD, although stopped taking medication at the age of fifteen. The report notes that the Defendant exhibits ongoing features consistent with adult ADHD. The report says: "These symptoms are long-standing and continue to cause functional impairment, including difficulties with emotional regulation and impulse control." 22. He also reached the criteria for alcohol dependency.

23. The report is cautiously optimistic about the Defendant's prognosis if he is able to engage with appropriate mental health and substance misuse interventions, and each of his challenges are treatable with structured support.

24. The Defendant is assessed as being at a high risk of reconviction in the next twelve months and he poses a raised risk of serious harm, having a tendency to become volatile and violent when under the influence of alcohol.

25. The Defendant's counsel, in mitigation, confirmed that there was no dispute with the facts and that his client offered sincere apologies to all involved, not seeking to excuse his behaviour in any way. Nobody was injured but he accepts that that was more a matter of luck than judgment.

26. In reflecting on his behaviour in dealing with the police, he acknowledges that the police were patient and it is accepted that a sentence of imprisonment of between twelve and fifteen months would, it was submitted, reflect the gravamen of the offending.

27. The Defendant has already served a period of six months and counsel submitted that the Court should feel able to consider a period of community service because this is the way that his complex needs could be met, and he could receive the therapeutic interventions which are not available to him in prison. Effectively, he should receive a treatment order. If so, he could go back to live with his relative, a doctor, who has provided a letter of support. Indeed, there are good references for this Defendant. If allowed back into the community, he is willing and able to work and has work in prospect. He understands that were the Court to give him a community service order, the discipline in that would be, as defence counsel puts it, "old school". In essence, however, defence counsel is asking the Court to consider community service as an act of mercy so that this Defendant can be rehabilitated and receive the treatment that, it is submitted, he needs.

28. The Court did not find this an easy matter. It is clear that the sentence moved for by the Attorney General was neither wrong in principle nor could it in any way be considered as excessive. This Defendant committed a series of wholly unprovoked and drink fuelled offences which not only posed a potential danger to members of the public but potentially caused injury and was in any event entirely disruptive and unpleasant for the police to deal with. On first principles and reflecting on the policies described in other cases before this Court above, the Defendant could not have expected other than a sentence of imprisonment.

29. However, the Court considered with enormous care the letters written on his behalf and in particular those parts of the pre-sentencing report that refers to his troubled background and the psychological assessment that points to the very real difficulties that he has. Furthermore, we are mindful of the fact that he has already in effect spent approximately six months in custody, and we are prepared to accept that his apology is genuine and that he has learnt his lesson.

30. We think that there is some reason to hope that this Defendant, if he is offered suitable treatment which we do not think he can get in sufficient measure in prison, will be able to turn his life round and become a positive member of society.

31. In the circumstances, which are unusual in this case, the Court took the view that we would impose a substantial period of community service and sentence the Defendant to community service on the basis of the equivalent of the following periods of imprisonment: Count 1 - 6 months Count 2 - months Count 3 - months Count 4 - months Count 5 - months Count 6 - months 32. Counts 3 to 6 inclusive are to be served concurrently with each other but consecutive to Counts 1 and 2, making a total of 240 hours of community service which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment.

33. In addition, we made the Defendant subject to a probation order for a period of 18 months and warned him that he must abide by all directions given by the Probation Service, including those as to where he lived, with regard to abstinence from alcohol and as to the treatment he was to undergo. In addition, we disqualified him from driving for 36 months and required that he take a test at the end of that period. We also imposed an exclusion order in the terms sought by the Crown for a period of 18 months in order that it runs concurrently with the probation order.

34. We warned the Defendant in the clearest terms that he was being given a chance and that he must anticipate custody should he re-offend whilst on probation. Authorities Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111 . AG v Cummins [2006] JRC 070 . AG v Chevalier [2024] JRC 062 . AG v Chmielinski [2025] JRC 086. Crime (Public Order) (Jersey) Law 2024. Page Last Updated: 28 Oct 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII