Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC074

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th April 2011

Before     :

M. C. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

W

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty plead to the following charges:

1 count of:	Consuming intoxicating liquor on licensed premises whilst under the age of 18 years, contrary to Article 13(2) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being drunk and disorderly (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 3 and 4).
1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  17.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 and 2:

On 7^th November, 2010, police officers conducting a routine licensing check at St James' Wine Bar discovered the defendant slumped at a table apparently asleep.  Despite the loud music and the efforts of one of the police officers (who applied pressure to a point behind the defendant's ear) he was difficult to rouse.  He eventually woke and was carried out of the premises.  He was clearly very drunk, unable to stand unaided or even propped against a wall.  He was initially co-operative but became aggressive and, when an officer checked his date of birth, began to swear at the officers.  He was warned, but continued to swear aggressively and so was arrested for drunk and disorderly.  He was handcuffed and restrained against a wall whilst back up arrived.  He then had to be further restrained with Velcro leg restraints as he tried to kick out at the officers. 

Counts 3, 4 and 5:

On 19^th December, 2010, the defendant and another youth stole a crate of Stella Artois lager worth £51 from the Checkers at Val Plaisant.  Later the same day they returned to the same shop and stole £120 worth of tobacco products, mainly Silk Cut Red. 

That evening police attended a flat on an unrelated call.  One of the officers recognised the defendant, who was heavily intoxicated and verbally abusive.  Large amounts of Stella Artois and Silk Cut Red cigarettes were present in the flat.  The defendant and another youth were arrested on suspicion of larceny.  Inspector Williamson instructed the defendant to sit on the sofa; he refused and attempted to push past.  Inspector Williamson therefore moved the defendant backwards towards the sofa.  The defendant then produced a knife with a six inch blade and thrust it towards the Inspector, who grabbed his wrist and demanded that he drop the weapon.  The defendant did not do so and, fearing for his safety and with no other officers available to assist at that moment, the Inspector punched the defendant in the face and told him to drop the weapon.  The defendant refused and was again struck by the Inspector, who then managed to secure the knife.  The defendant was then restrained by a number of officers, who found a further large serrated bread knife in the waistband of his trousers.  Throughout the incident the Inspector was in no doubt that defendant intended to cause him serious harm and feared that he would suffer serious injury.  In interview the defendant denied that he had intended to use the knife. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; youth (16 at the time of the offences); remorse.  Has achieved enhanced status at the prison.  Would be sentenced to custody in order to have a "fresh start" on release.

Previous Convictions:

Six convictions for twenty four offences. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 4:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' youth detention, consecutive.

Total: 2 years' 4 months' youth detention. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court takes a very serious view of the use of a knife, especially against a police officer.  There is no alternative to custody and had the defendant been older the Court would have endorsed the Crowns conclusions. 

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	18 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' youth detention. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the knives ordered. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These offences show that when you consume alcohol you become aggressive and out of control.  The most serious offence for which you are before us is of course the grave and criminal assault on the Police Inspector, but you are also up for offences of dishonesty and public disorder offences.

2.        As to the grave and criminal assault the Police Inspector was at your home on an unrelated matter and he recognised your involvement in the larceny offences, as a result of which he arrested you.  You had seen this coming, so after they arrived, but before you were arrested, you went into the kitchen and armed yourself with two knives.  Once you were arrested you drew one of the knives and you brandished it at the Police Inspector so as to threaten him.  Fortunately, for you, as well as for him, he managed to disarm you and no injuries were sustained.  But the Court has repeatedly said that it will take a very serious view of the use of a knife in an assault, because serious injuries can so easily be caused.  Those who do resort to attacks with a knife are likely to face very serious sentences.  This is particularly so where a police officer is threatened, because police officers are entitled to the Court's protection as they carry out their public duties.

3.        You were 16 at the time of this offence, although you are now 17.  We have been referred to the provisions of Article 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 and to the case of AG v Cameron [2008] JRC 182, which in turns referred to the English case of R v Gafoor (2003)EXCR Crim 1857.  We have also been referred to some more recent cases which do put an additional gloss on those earlier cases, namely AG v W and P [2010] JRC 229, which in turn refers to R v Bowker [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 72.  What those cases say is that where somebody like yourself crosses the threshold from 16 to 17 between committing the offence and being convicted, the fact that you were only 16 at the time is a powerful factor, and the Court should certainly pay very careful regard to the fact that at 16 there is a statutory maximum of 12 months' youth detention.  But it is also quite clear that this is not a complete limitation; the cases cannot possibly override the wording of the statute.  As a matter of law you can be sentenced to more than 1 year's youth detention if the Court considers that is the right sentence.

4.        We have taken into account, in mitigation, your guilty pleas; your youth, the fact that you are only just 17; your remorse, we have read your letter and we commend you for it, we hope that you mean what you say there.  We also take into account all the reports and what your advocate has said.  We are pleased to note that while you have been on remand you have taken advantage of some of the courses available at the prison; we urge you to continue to do so because that will place you in a better position when you are released.

5.        We have borne in mind, of course, Article 4 of the 1994 Law but we are quite satisfied there is no alternative to youth detention here and indeed your counsel did not suggest otherwise.  There has been a history of failure to respond to non-custodial sentences which suggests you are unable or unwilling to respond to them, and, in addition, we consider the offending in this case is too serious to be dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence because of the serious nature of the grave and criminal assault.  Youth detention is inevitable.  What we have had to consider is whether it should be limited to 12 months, in accordance with Article 4(5).  We repeat that the fact that you were 16 at the time, although nearly 17 at the time of the offences, is a powerful factor, but it is not decisive.  We are quite satisfied that in this case a sentence of 12 months' youth detention would be insufficient to recognise the seriousness of the assault which you have carried out, coupled with your previous record.  Had you been older we would have endorsed the Crown's conclusions; they were perfectly proper for an offence of this seriousness for somebody who was older.  But the fact that you were 16 at the time and are only just 17 now is, as we say, a very powerful factor and it leads us to reduce the conclusions.

6.        The right total sentence for you is one of 18 months' youth detention.  We are going to achieve that by making all of the sentences concurrent and reducing that for the grave and criminal assault.  The individual sentences are as follows: Count 1; 1 month, Count 2; 1 month, Count 3; 2 months, Count 4; 3 months, Count 5; 18 months' youth detention, all of these to be concurrent.  And I must warn you that you may be subject to supervision when you are released.

7.        We urge you to make constructive use of the time that you are now going to serve so that when you come out you can try and turn your life around.  We hope very much that you will.

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the knives.

Authorities

Whelan's Aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG v Cameron [2008] JRC 182.

R v Gafoor (2003) EWCR Crim 1857.

AG v W and P [2010] JRC 229.

R v Bowker [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 72.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Lockhart [2011] JRC 025.

AG-v-Leitch 2000/76.