Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/194

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

11^th October, 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Dean Thomas Hope

Indictment laid on 5^th July 2002.

1 count of malicious damage (count 2).

 

Indictment laid on 11^th October 2002

1 count of common assault (count 1).

 

[On 5^th July, 2002, the Defendant, and a co-accused pleaded not guilty to 1 count of robbery (count 1) and the Defendant pleaded guilty to 1 count of malicious damage.  On 11^th October, a new indictment was laid against the Defendant, containing 1 count of common assault and the Crown withdrew the count of robbery in the original indictment.] 

 

Age:     25.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The victim and defendant were both in Jersey Telecoms for the purpose of purchasing new mobile telephones.  The victim finished his transaction first and left the shop to return to his parked car which was parked in Minden Place Car Park.

As the victim exited the stairwell, he became aware that someone was following him.  He turned and recognised the defendant from Jersey Telecoms.  Continuing to his car, the victim walked a little further before he felt someone grab his shoulders from behind.  After a momentary struggle, he turned to face the defendant.  Confused by what was happening, he asked the defendant "What's going on?" to which the defendant retorted, "Do you want some?"  The defendant then lunged at the victim and a scuffle ensued.  For some forty seconds both men rolled around on the floor and received various bruises and scratches.  Damage occurred to various items of the victim's property, including his glasses, watch and ring.  The victim finally overpowered the defendant and restrained him until the police arrived.

The defendant was intoxicated.  When put into a patrol car and driven to Police Headquarters, he became agitated and bit a chunk from the front passenger seat headrest.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; no previous convictions for violence; ill-health of defendant's mother.

 

Previous Convictions:

Minor miscellaneous driving offences; found on enclosed premises for unlawful purpose.

 

Conclusions:

Indictment laid on 5^th July 2002.

Count 2: 2 weeks' imprisonment.

 

Indictment laid on 11^th October 2002

Count 1: 5 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

£858.88 compensation order.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Indictment laid on 5^th July 2002.

Count 2: 2 weeks' imprisonment.

 

Indictment laid on 11^th October 2002

Count 1: 4 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

Compensation Order: (1) £68.88: to Police or 1 week's imprisonment, in default of payment; (2) £790 to assault victim or 2 months' imprisonment, in default of payment.

 

 

N.M Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was an unpleasant assault on a person going about his everyday business in the middle of the day in St Helier.  The Court has repeatedly said that it will not tolerate such behaviour.  The defendant says he was provoked by comments which the victim made on his mobile telephone and which the defendant overheard. At interview the defendant said he was very drunk and could not remember the incident, although he has now alleged this verbal provocation.  We do not accept that there was any provocation.  Even if there was, it did not justify his following the victim into the car park and there assaulting him.

2.        There is, however, considerable mitigation. There is the guilty plea; the fact that the defendant has no previous convictions for violence; the fact that his mother has been ill; and he has recently been injured.  We have seen references which show that he is hard working.  Most importantly, there are two matters particular to this case.  First, the defendant has had a robbery charge hanging over him since January, which was only dropped by the prosecution today and he was only informed that it would be dropped yesterday.  This undoubtedly would have been a strain for many months.  Secondly, he spent the equivalent of a five month, twenty eight day sentence on remand in prison before being released on bail to return to Scotland.

3.        Despite this mitigation we think that an offence like this can only be dealt with by way of a prison sentence.  Miss Fogarty says that the matter is only up in this Court because of the robbery charge; otherwise it would have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court and she asserts that had it been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court, a prison sentence of one week would have been imposed.  We have to say we find this hard to believe.  If that is the case, it would have been far too low. 

4.        In our judgment, the correct sentence for this offence, making an allowance for all the mitigation in this case, is one of four months' imprisonment on the count of assault and two weeks' concurrent for the malicious damage.  We also make a compensation order in the sum of £790 for Mr MacFirbhisigh, with two months' imprisonment in default and £68.88 to the police, with one week's imprisonment in default.  These to be payable by 1^st June, 2003, which should give you time to get back on your feet and start making regular payments towards the compensation order.  The intention is to give you time to regain employment and then pay £50 a week, as you have suggested.

No Authorities