Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/119

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th June, 2000

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Quérée, Potter, Tibbo, Le Breton, Bullen, Allo.

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Justin Darren Le Monnier

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded on 7^th June, 2000, following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:   grave and criminal assault (count 1);

1 count of:   larceny by finding (count 2);

1 count of:   attempted larceny (count 3).

 

Age:   27.

 

Details of Offences:

 

Count 1:  On 17^th February, 1999, the defendant went to a night-club having consumed alcohol and having armed himself with a knife.  He was refused entry by the doorman.  The Doorman thought the defendant had something in his pocket and shut the door on him.  Thereafter patrons were let out of the premises but not in.  Various persons began gathering on the pavement outside.  The defendant was shouting abuse at the doorman to which the victim took exception.  There was a verbal exchange and then the victim punched the defendant.  The defendant then stabbed the victim on the right side of his abdomen.  The victim was not initially aware of the extent of his injury.  The fight was stopped by the doorman and a police car appeared.  The respective groups were moved in opposite directions.  The victim then realised the extent of his injury and began running away, the defendant pursuing him.  The victim then realised he needed to get to hospital and the victim's friends pursued the defendant.  The defendant was seen to throw a knife into the grounds of a nearby hotel.  The victim's friends began to assault the defendant and a passing taxi driver stopped his cab at about the same time as the police arrived.  The defendant was arrested and denied either carrying a knife or having stabbed the victim.  Reluctance of witnesses to give statements hampered police investigations.  Knife not recovered until two weeks later with no forensic evidence remaining on it.  CCTV coverage confirmed route taken by victim and defendant.  Victim suffered stab wound in lower right abdomen, penetrating abdominal wall and underlying peritoneum (a cling film like structure which encases the intestines).  Exploratory surgery necessary through 7.5 cm incision but fortunately no evidence of further internal damage.  Police surgeon noted it was just good fortune that far more serious injuries had not been suffered.  Victim made full recovery but stab and operative wounds would cause permanent scarring.  Following charge of grave and criminal assault, defendant failed to appear on 15^th December, 1999, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Counts 2 and 3:  Defendant admitted finding two bank cards.  He did not admit the facts of a breaking and entering, nor did the prosecution rely upon them.  A property was broken into and various items stolen inter alia two bank cards.  The defendant entered the cards into a cash dispenser machine, on the first occasion for a balance enquiry and with the second card a withdrawal request of £50.  No cash was delivered and the cards were withheld.  Video cassette showed the defendant as entering the stolen cards.  Defendant was eventually arrested in January, 2000, in Hampshire and returned to Jersey.  He pleaded guilty to larceny by finding and attempted larceny but not guilty to grave and criminal assault.  There was an old style committal following which he pleaded guilty upon indictment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

In addition to mitigation, defence counsel argued that the Crown's conclusions were excessive, that Mallet was wrongly decided and alternatively, if Mallet were correct, it should not be applied retrospectively in so much as it had been decided after Le Monnier had committed the grave and criminal assault.  A skeleton argument was provided setting out points of law in support of the above.  In mitigation defendant had been victim of street violence earlier that year and the victim of a minor knife attack earlier that night.  He had consumed alcohol.  He admitted taking the knife with him but claimed it was for protection.  Crown accepted that there was some provocation.  Defendant felt it was he who was the victim.  Complained of delay in bringing prosecution but this arose partly because the defendant absconded to the UK.  Defendant would have a sense of grievance if he were sentenced on the basis of Mallet rather than Norris.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Poor record.  Six previous convictions including illegal entry and larceny and public order offences.

 

Conclusions:     count 1:   4½ years' imprisonment;

count 2:   6 months' imprisonment, consecutive;

count 3:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

TOTAL:  5 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations

of the Court:

 

count 1:   4 years' imprisonment;

                            count 2:   1 month's imprisonment, consecutive;

count 3:   1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

                            TOTAL:  4 years and 1 month's imprisonment.

The Court endorsed Mallet saying "we think that these principles have in fact been applied by the Court on many previous occasions when applying the principles set out by Professor Thomas.  In our judgment there is no question of unfair retrospectivity nor any breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate;

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            This was a serious assault with a knife which could easily have caused death or permanent injury to the victim.  It is an aggravating feature that the accused armed himself with the knife before going out for the evening's entertainment.  On the other hand there is no doubt that the accused was provoked and we take that into account in mitigation.  In addition, the accused has expressed remorse and he has pleaded guilty to the indictment.

 

2.            Counsel for the accused addressed us at some length on the principles to be applied in arriving at the appropriate sentence.  We were not persuaded that the analysis set out by the Court in AG -v- Mallet (24^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported was erroneous and indeed we endorse it.  We think that these principles have, in fact, been applied by the Court on many previous occasions despite AG -v- Norris (3^rd June, 1992) Jersey Unreported.  In a nutshell, the Court has applied and is now applying the broad principles set out by Professor Thomas in his book 'Principles of Sentencing' many years ago.  In our judgment no question of unfair retrospectivity nor any breach of the European Convention on Human Rights is in question.  This is a case which falls within the second category described by Thomas and merits a sentence in the three to five year band.

 

3.            Having regard to all the mitigating factors we think that the appropriate sentence on count 1 is one of four years' imprisonment.

 

4.            So far as the offences of dishonesty are concerned, we accept the submissions of defence counsel and we propose to impose a lower sentence for those offences.

 

5.            Stand up, please, Le Monnier.  On count 1, you are sentenced to four years' imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive; on count 3, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years and 1 month's imprisonment.

Authorities

 

 

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:

Article 7.

In re Z (2^nd March, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Norris (3^rd June, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Douglas (21^st December, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Words and Phrases Legally Defined (2^nd Ed'n): Vol. 4: per incuriam.

 

State of Qatar -v- Sheikh Khalifa Al-Thani & Ors. (28^th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Nafkha (23^rd May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Mallet (24^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

Thomas: 'Principles of Sentencing' (2^nd Ed'n): pp.93-9, 206.

 

Archbold (2000 Ed'n): paragraphs 16-96 to 16-100.

 

Home Office Internet Publication: "Rights Brought Home", The Human RightsBill:

Chapter 1: The Case for Change.

 

Thomas: "Sentencing Legislation - The Case for Change" [1997] CLR 406.

 

Cheney et al "Criminal Justice and the Human Rights Act" (1999): pp.133-141.

 

R -v- Reah (1963) 3 All ER 269.

 

Waddington -v- Miah (1974) 2 All ER 377.

 

AG -v- Raffray (20^th July, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Melville (20^th September, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

Evans & Phillips -v- AG (1997) JLR 94 CofA.

 

AG -v- Le Cocq & Tregaskis (21^st July, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Harris (4^th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Mullacky (14^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Goncalves (7^th February, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Parry (6^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Knowles (26^th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Cooper (30^th November, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Douglas (21^st December, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Cabot (31^st March, 2000) Jersey Unreported.