Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - larceny - breach of the peace

[2024]JRC017

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 January 2024

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Opfermann

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Christopher James Goodchild

Addison Thomas Mazurke

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize trial and a guilty plea to the following charges:

Mark Christopher James Goodchild

First Indictment

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 3).

Third Indictment

1 count of:

Breach of the peace (Count 1).

Age:  37.

Plea: Not guilty to the charges on the First Indictment.  Guilty to the charge on the Third Indictment

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

In the early hours of the morning of 12 September 2022, the Victim, was walking along King Street when he was approached by the Defendants, who proceeded to commit a serious and sustained assault on him and stole his shoes.  The Victim and the Defendants were unknown to each other.  The Victim was visibly drunk when he was attacked.

 

The assault was captured on CCTV.  Mazurke initiated the attack.  The Victim was punched several times to the face, head and body and fell to the ground several times.  Goodchild punched and stamped on the Victim while he was on the ground.  The Victim attempted to remove himself from the situation by walking away but the Defendants repeatedly pursued him and goaded him to fight.  At one point the Victim attempted to run away from the Defendants along King Street but he was followed by the Defendants and thrown to the ground at Charing Cross by Goodchild and knocked unconscious.  Mazurke used his mobile phone to make a video recording of the Victim whilst mocking him as he lay motionless on the ground.  The Victim remained motionless for approximately eight minutes before walking away without his shoes.

 

The Defendants returned to the scene later and located and picked up the Victim's shoes.  They saw the Victim who was still in the area and they teased him with his shoes but refused to return them.  The Victim ran away.

 

The Victim later came to the attention of the police at the Weighbridge.  He was visibly injured and was taken to hospital by ambulance.  The Victim had several bruises, swelling and abrasions to his head, limbs and torso, and a severely fractured collar bone.

 

By the time of the trial, Mazurke admitted to being involved in the incident and pleaded guilty to common assault.  Goodchild disputed that he was the other man shown in the CCTV footage and claimed he was elsewhere on the night in question.

 

Second Indictment

On 14 October 2022, whilst being arrested on suspicion of the assault listed on the first indictment, the arresting officer saw Mazurke attempting to pass an item to the woman he was with and pulled him away.  The item was 39.38 grams of cannabis resin, intended for personal use.

 

Third Indictment

On 17 April 2023, at around 2:20am, police attended Mulcaster Street following reports of two men fighting.  Goodchild was identified at the scene and was intoxicated.  He alleged he had been assaulted but declined to provide a statement of complaint.

 

Goodchild and another man were shouting at each other and officers encouraged Goodchild to walk away.  Goodchild continued shouting at the other man and made threatening comments such as "get him away from me or I'll spark him clean out" and "if they want it let's have it."  He then made a sudden movement, attempting to get around the officers towards the other man.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea to Count 1 of the Third Indictment, albeit not at the earliest opportunity.

Previous Convictions:

Goodchild had previous convictions for 59 offences including drugs offences, dishonesty offences, public disorder and violence.  When last sentenced by the Magistrate's Court on 18 November 2022, Goodchild was sentenced to 110 hours' community service and a 12-month probation order.  He was in breach of both of these orders by his re-offending in the instant case, having completed 70 hours of community service.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

3 week's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of the First Indictment.

Total:  3 years and 8 months' imprisonment.

Breach of Probation and Community Service Orders imposed on 18 November 2022 - the Crown invites the Court to revoke these order and impose 40 hours' Community Service Orders - equivalent to the amount not completed.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of the First Indictment.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Breach of Probation and Community Service Orders imposed on 18 November 2022 - the Court discharged the Probation Order and revoked the Community Service Order, imposing 1 month's imprisonment, to run concurrently with Count 1 of the First Indictment.

Addison Thomas Mazurke

First Indictment

1 count of:	Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 3).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Age: 

Plea: Not guilty to the charges on the First Indictment.  Guilty to the charge on the Second Indictment.

Details of Offence:

See above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea to Count 1 of the Second Indictment.

Previous Convictions:

Mazurke had previous convictions for five offences, including for an offence against the person, offences against property and a public order offence.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Total:  3 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

2 week's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Baglin for the Defendant Goodchild.

Advocate G. Herold-Howes for Defendant Mazurke.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mark Goodchild and Addison Mazurke, you are 37 and 29 years old respectively.  You were convicted by the jury (after a four day trial) of extremely serious violence committed in St Helier at night upon a total stranger.  Your victim was 47 years old, worked as a chef and on Sunday 11 September he went out with some friends from work.  At about 2am, the Victim foolishly took a bag of takeaway food from a young man he did not know.  You two apparently saw this and decided to do something about it.

2.        Just after 2am, Mr Mazurke you tripped up the Victim as he was walking down King Street.  You must have known from his gait that he was intoxicated, as he was plainly unsteady on his feet.  Subsequently as part of a joint enterprise both of you kicked and then punched him.  The Victim said "They punished me.  I tried to cover my face.  They were so violent.  They were beating me - kicking me and punching me.  There was no-one around to help".  Your Victim tried to escape and from time to time stood his ground in self-defence but he was repeatedly put to the ground four times - on the CCTV footage - in King Street.  The footage on the third occasion - when he was knocked to the ground by Mr Mazurke - shows Mr Mazurke on top of the victim while you, Mr Goodchild, punched him and then stamped and kicked him whilst he lay on the ground.  Your Victim ultimately ran down King Street in order to attempt to get away from the both of you, but you both pursued him down King Street into Broad Street.  Near Charing Cross you, Goodchild, grabbed him and hurled him to the ground, apparently knocking him unconscious for approximately eight minutes.  Mr Mazurke, you then used your mobile telephone to video record the unconscious body of your victim, laughing at him and suggesting that you might defecate on his head.  You both discussed stealing his shoes - which you later did.

3.        You then walked to the Weighbridge with you, Mr Mazurke, removing your t-shirt and placing it in a bin, presumably in order to distance yourself from evidence that would connect you to this assault.  Thereafter the footage shows you shaking each other's hands - presumably congratulating each other on your night's work.

4.        You returned to Charing Cross after your victim had left the scene, he having stood up, disorientated and unsteady on his feet, leaving his shoes where he had lain.  You stole your Victim's shoes, taking one each and later throwing them away.

5.        As your Victim walked to the hospital, you approached him again.  This was not shown by the footage but was something he recalled and told the jury.  You laughed at him and teased him with the trainers that you would not give back to him.  You wanted to carry on fighting - he ran to the hospital.

6.        He found the A&E desk unmanned.  When the police found him sitting by the road at 4:30am he was upset, his ears were bleeding and his collar bone protruding.  There was a swelling on the left side of his face, bruising to his arms and shoulders and he was cradling his head.  He asked for an ambulance and he was conveyed by ambulance to the hospital.

7.        The fracture to his clavicle -  his collar bone - was a comminuted displaced fracture.  Such injuries do not generally heal on their own and this one did not heal on its own.  Dr Evans, who gave evidence to the jury, said that the fracture that you two inflicted was unusual because a significant amount of force is required to cause it.  She said that such injuries are often seen with car crashes.  She said that a significant amount of force is required to break this bone into three pieces and a punch was unlikely to cause such an injury. 

8.        Prior to the trial, you both lied to the police in interview and you both lied to the jury at trial.  Mr Goodchild, you denied being present at all at the time the offence was committed, even though you were recognised by a man who went to school with you - who was then a police officer with the States of Jersey Police - when he saw the CCTV footage.  Furthermore, wearing similar clothing in your case Mr Goodchild, you and Mr Mazurke were seen out in St Helier just 24 hours later, causing trouble again.  This led to your arrest, Mr Goodchild and conviction for another offence.  You were both drunk and on that occasion Mr Goodchild gave the police a false name and date of birth.

9.        Mr Mazurke you also lied, and you gave a false account that you were acting in self-defence. This was inconceivable, having regard to the evidence.  You denied knowing who was with you that night, even though it was plainly Mr Goodchild.  You told the jury that the reason you had chosen to film your Victim whilst he was lying unconscious was because he was a 'scumbag'.

10.     When your t-shirt was recovered, Mr Mazurke, it was analysed and your blood and your victim's blood were found upon it.

11.     Mr Mazurke, you face a Second Indictment in relation to possession of just under 40 grams of cannabis resin to which you have pleaded guilty.

12.     Mr Goodchild, on 17 April 2023, again whilst in St Helier and again just after 2am and whilst on bail for these offences, you committed a breach of the peace which included you threatening another man and threatening to knock him out.  Initially you pleaded not guilty to that offence but you admitted it ultimately on 17 October 2023.

13.     We have read the Victim's personal statement which deals with the social, financial and physical distress that you have caused to him, as well as the ordeal of giving evidence at trial and being cross-examined.  The Crown describe him as having suffered no less than five visible injuries to his head, seven to his limbs and seven to his torso in addition to the fractured collar bone.  He required surgery, was off work for three months without pay to allow the bone to heal and he has not made a full recovery.  He has lost movement in his shoulder; he cannot open a door with his left arm or lift his arm up high to carry any heavy items, and he has stopped undertaking various recreational activities.  The pain is worse in cold weather.

14.     Mr Goodchild, you have a bad record for violence.  Mr Mazurke, you also have previous convictions.  Mr Mazurke the Pre-Sentence Report records that you feel justified in the attack that you carried out and feel no remorse.  Mr Goodchild, you now accept that you were a participant in this assault, contrary to what you told the jury.  But you deny the extent of your involvement and maintain your actions were lawful, and in the circumstances you show little or no remorse.  We have today been given a letter that you have written to court purporting to be a letter of remorse in which you do not mention your Victim at all.  Your general behaviour is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that the very next day you assaulted another member of the public - this time a taxi driver - and although you pleaded guilty to that offence, you do not take responsibility for that matter either.

15.     You are both assessed as being at high risk of re-conviction and present a real risk of harm to others in the assessment of the Probation Officer.  We have listened with care to all that has been said by your respective counsel.  In respect of the main offence we do not agree that we should differentiate between the two of you.  Considering all that has been said and having regard to the relevant authorities, you were both equally involved in the offences that concerned the jury and jointly responsible for the injuries caused.  Neither of you was on the periphery. 

16.     This was a brutal and callous attack causing significant injury to your victim that could have left him with life-changing or fatal injuries.

17.     We agree that Count 2 should be treated as an aggravating feature of the grave and criminal assault and accordingly we will pass a concurrent sentence in relation to that matter.

18.     The Court has repeatedly said that violence on the streets of St Helier will be met with a custodial sentence in almost every case.  This was a savage and sustained assault which both of you seem to have enjoyed, congratulating each other after you knew what you done and for which neither of you have shown any genuine remorse, notwithstanding the passage of 15 months and a trial by jury.

19.     Such brutal, vicious and cowardly behaviour needs to be the subject of a sentence sufficient to punish you and to deter others from such acts.  The Court has a duty to protect the public and to ensure that people can go about their business safely at all hours in St Helier.

20.     On Count 1 of the Indictment the Jurats were divided.  One would have imposed a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment and one 3 years and 10 months' imprisonment.  Accordingly I have been required to exercise my casting vote and on Count 1 the sentence of the Court is 4 years' imprisonment. 

21.     The offence of larceny 3 months' imprisonment concurrent.

22.     Mr Mazurke, the Indictment involving the possession of cannabis, 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. 

23.     Mr Goodchild, the Indictment concerning a breach of the peace, 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and as to the breaches of community service and probation, we revoke the orders and impose a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent in relation to those offences.

24.     We make no order for compensation in view of the means of the Defendants.

25.     The total sentence in both cases is 4 years' imprisonment.

26.     We hope that you both reflect during your time in custody on these offences and determine to emerge from custody able to make a better contribution to your community. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

AG v Nolan [2002] JLR Note 31

AG v Mendonca [2006] JRC 066

AG v Goodchild [2016] JRC 128B

AG v Robertson [2022] JRC 264

AG v Da Silva [2021] JRC 168