AG v Watton-Roberts [2024] JRC 169 (06 August 2024)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Jersey Unreported Judgments You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Watton-Roberts [2024] JRC 169 (06 August 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_169.html Cite as: [2024] JRC 169 [ New search ] [ Help ] Superior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - drugs - receiving stolen property - contempt of court - reasons for the sentence imposed. [2024]JRC169 Royal Court (Samedi) 6 August 2024 Before : R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Austin-Vautier, Averty, Le Cornu and Berry The Attorney General -v- William Watton-Roberts Ms C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate. Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant. SENTENCING JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The Defendant is 33 years old and has many convictions for violence. Defence counsel quite rightly described the Defendant's criminal record as " unenviable ". He was released from prison on 20 June 2023 having served a sentence of 16 months in prison for a number of offences including six offences of violence. He formed a relationship with his victim prior to the assault and began staying at the flat which she shared with her young child aged 4. 2. Prior to the offences committed against her, the Defendant and the victim ceased to live together. On 18 August, the victim returned to her flat and approximately an hour later was disturbed by the Defendant banging on the door asking to be let in. The victim opened the door slightly and the Defendant pushed his way into the flat. 3. The Defendant was aggressive, abusive, and drunk, calling the victim a " slut ", " whore ", and " slag ". He threatened to knock her teeth out and knock her out, and threatened to punch her head in. The Defendant then, albeit in the context of the victim hitting the Defendant once with a frying pan, punched her in the head many times. The victim attempted to escape from her home - reaching the front door. The Defendant grabbed her by the hair and dragged her back into the flat. The victim thought she was going to die. The Defendant put her face down on the floor, pulled her hair, punched her head and said, " I swear I'm going to bury you tonight, I'm gonna put you in your grave. " The Defendant bit her on the face. 4. Neighbours heard the victim's cries. They had been alerted by hearing the Defendant saying " I'm going to kill you " repeatedly. They heard the victim saying " help me, help me ". One of the neighbours saw the Defendant with his right hand around his victim's neck with her struggling to breathe. 5. The police attended and found the victim visibly distressed with bruising and a cut to her face. She was taken to hospital. The Defendant was arrested and cautioned. He had a facial injury which required stitching. 6. The victim was examined and sustained a number of injuries which were documented by a doctor's findings and by photographic evidence. The victim suffered extensive bruising, a wound under her right eye, swelling and abrasions to her face, head, knees, legs, right shoulder, and arms. The injuries to her neck were consistent with non-fatal strangulation. 7. The victim was subjected to sustained violence and a threat to kill her. 8. When the Defendant was interviewed by the police, he initially answered no comment. Later, he said that he had caused the victim injury but had done so in self-defence. 9. Shortly before the assault, on 10 August 2023, the Defendant was stopped by police riding a stolen push bike. He had a small amount of cannabis on him when he was arrested. The bike had been stolen on 5 August 2023. The drugs weighed just under one gram with a street value of between £25 and £40. 10. Following the Defendant's arrest, the police discovered extensive footage on his mobile phone consisting of one still and five videos showing that he had covertly recorded a Royal Court sentencing hearing on 23 July 2023. One of the videos is 40 minutes long and captures the majority of the judgment of the Royal Court. The Defendant shared this footage with others on " Facebook Messenger ". 11. In interview in April this year, the Defendant admitted this offence and said he knew that he should not have made the recording. Accordingly, he knowingly committed the offence of contempt of court. 12. As to the offence of grave and criminal assault, the Defendant did not enter a guilty plea at the first opportunity in the Magistrate's Court but did so when he was indicted on 27 October 2023. In respect of the other offences, he entered guilty pleas at the first opportunity in the Magistrate's Court and will receive full credit for those early pleas of guilty. 13. In AG v Pritchard [2020] EWHC 607, the English High Court considered a defendant who used his mobile telephone on ten occasions to make audio recordings of proceedings in the Crown Court without the leave the Court. The recordings were made on various dates in five sets of criminal proceedings and included capturing private conversations of other Court users. The defendant was working as a clerk to a firm of solicitors. At paragraph 9, the High Court noted that " the recording of proceedings without permission of the Court is a serious matter...because it is possible for recordings to be made without difficulty and there is a potential for misuse and disruption...". 14. In England and Wales, the offence of contempt is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years. However, in Jersey the offence of contempt is a customary law offence and there is no limit to the Court's powers. 15. We agree with the Crown that this is a serious offence. The Defendant intentionally made a video recording of the Royal Court delivering sentence. He shared it with others. Various participants in the proceedings could be identified from the video which he shared. In mitigation, there is the Defendant's early plea, the fact that these were not recordings of a trial, there were no reporting restrictions in place and, importantly, there was no identification of a witness entitled to anonymity. 16. We note in the case of R v Vincent [2004] EWCA Crim 1271, a sentence of twelve months in prison was upheld by the English Court of Appeal, in circumstances where the defendant had taken photographs during the trial of his brother and the photographs captured a witness, a prison officer, the judge and the defendant. At paragraphs 15 and 16, the Court of Appeal said: "15 We do not wish to lay down any general guidelines in this case, but some comments may be helpful. It is well known that taking photographs using mobile phones in court has become a major problem and concern in both the Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Courts of England and Wales. It is also of concern in the civil courts. The reason for this concern will be obvious after a moment's thought. Intimidation of juries and witnesses is a growing problem generally in criminal cases. Recently there have even been physical attacks on prosecuting counsel in a case. A person could use photographs of members of the jury or a witness or advocates or even a judge in order to try to intimidate them or to take other reprisals. Witnesses who are only seen on a screen or who are meant to be known only by an initial could possibly be identified. The anonymity of dock officers or policemen who are involved in a case could be compromised if a photograph is taken and is used to identify them. It is clear, therefore, that illegal photography in court has the potential gravely to prejudice the administration of criminal justice. 16 The particular concern is not confined to the intended purpose of the person taking the photographs. Photographs can easily be passed on to others by electronic means. Once in the hands of others, the potential for misuse by others is very great. That is a matter which the courts must take into account if faced with a case of illegal photography in court. Other factors which will be likely to influence sentence must include: first, the nature of the trial; secondly, the potential disruption of the trial as a result of the illegal photographs being taken; and thirdly, the potential for misuse of the particular photographs involved. We entirely accept the approach of the judge that in an appropriate case immediate imprisonment is likely. There may be factors of mitigation such as a guilty plea, the youth of the offender, a genuine apology, or ignorance or naivety on the part of the person involved." 17. We endorse these remarks. Contempt of court is a serious offence and will generally result in an immediate custodial sentence. As the Royal Court said in AG v Bellot [2023] JRC 223 , the risk of unlawfully taken photographs being disseminated rapidly to a wide audience is high. Offences such as this carry a real risk of damaging public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly if they extend to images of witnesses and victims. In such circumstances, lengthy custodial sentences would be imposed by the Court. 18. This was a serious offence of domestic violence. We have regard to the case of Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216 and identify the following aggravating features: (i) The victim trusted the Defendant to stay at her home address and, notwithstanding the fact that their relationship had come to an end, this was violence that took place in the context of a previous intimate relationship; (ii) The Defendant attempted to prevent the victim from obtaining assistance by grabbing her hair and, when the neighbours attended, they had to pull her out of her own flat to safety; (iii) Although the victim's young child was not present during the assault, the victim's evidence was that he would have been affected by seeing his mother's extensive facial injuries after the event. Indeed, in the victim's personal statement, she said that the worst part of the incident was how it had affected her son. Since the offence, the child has become clingy and has not wanted to leave his mother. Further, the victim could not bear to remain in her flat after the assault and was compelled to move shortly thereafter; (iv) The Defendant has, as set out above, a proven history of violence, including restraining orders made in a domestic context. He also has a history of disobedience to Court orders. Paragraph 56 of the pre-sentence report noted that restraining orders had been imposed to prevent the Defendant from having contact with two ex-partners - he had breached both orders. 19. Further, the Defendant was assessed at being at high risk of re-conviction and as posing a risk of indirect harm to his children and any children of any future partners. The probation officer was unable to recommend a community based sentence. 20. We have regard to the contents of the Defendant's background, and all the mitigation placed before us including the submissions made by defence counsel. Notwithstanding the Defendant's guilty plea and the element of provocation to which we have referred, this was a brutal and sustained attack upon the Defendant's former partner, in which she was repeatedly punched, bitten on the face and throttled in her own home. The sentence moved for by the Crown was too short. The sentence we imposed was 3 years imprisonment. 21. The Crown applied for the Defendant to be subject to the notification requirements under Article 11 of the Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (the "2022 Law"), which provides: "11 Court may impose notification requirements (1) This Article applies to a person ("A") aged 16 or over who has been convicted of a relevant offence, regardless of whether the offence or conviction occurred before or after the commencement of this Law. (2) A court may, on the application of the Attorney General, order that the offender be subject to the notification requirements if the court is satisfied that the order is necessary and proportionate to reduce the risk of further abusive behaviour by the offender. (3) If the court orders that an offender be subject to the notification requirements, the court must specify the period for which the order is in force, which may be - (a) until a specified date; (b) until the occurrence of a specified event; or (c) until a further order is made by the court. (4) An order ceases to have effect (and the offender stops being subject to the notification requirements) - (a) after the date or event specified in the order, if one is specified; (b) if the offender's conviction for the relevant offence is quashed or reversed on appeal; or (c) if a court overturns the order under Article 13 or revokes the order under Article 14." 22. The Defendant has committed a " relevant offence " under Article 1, as the offence of grave and criminal assault involved the Defendant behaving abusively towards a person aged sixteen or over, to whom the Defendant was personally connected and " consists of more than one act or failure to act ". 23. Although the Defendant was convicted of a single offence, that offence consisted of a number of acts as set out above, including punching, biting and non-fatal strangulation. Accordingly, it is a " relevant offence " for the purpose of the 2022 Law. 24. Notification orders allow the police to conduct regular risk assessments and deal with safeguarding concerns arising from their management of domestic abuse perpetrators. The notification order sought by the Crown was, in our judgment, necessary and proportionate and we made it for a period of five years. 25. As to the second indictment, in relation to Count 1 (possession of cannabis), we imposed a sentence of 1 week imprisonment, concurrent. 26. In respect of the offences of receiving stolen property, one month consecutive, but concurrent to the sentence of 1 week's imprisonment. 27. We imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment consecutive for contempt of court, making a total of 3 years and 7 months imprisonment. 28. We ordered forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized and the mobile phone that the Defendant used to commit the offence of contempt of court. Authorities AG v Pritchard [2020] EWHC 607. R v Vincent [2004] EWCA Crim 1271. AG v Bellot [2023] JRC 223 . Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216 Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 Page Last Updated: 28 Aug 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_169.html