Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC011

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st January 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Graham Terence Martin

 

 

 

1 count of:	Grave and Criminal assault.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having offensive weapon in public place, contrary to Article 43 (1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.  (Count 2).

 

 

Age:     27.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendant and his girlfriend ended their nine year relationship and remained living together until other arrangements could be made.  A few days later the defendant's ex-girlfriend informed him that she had had sexual intercourse with a close friend of the defendant (the victim) the day after the relationship ended.  On finding this out the defendant called for a taxi to take him to the victim's home and whilst waiting for the taxi to arrive left threatening messages on the victim's phone.  The victim returned one of the calls and invited the defendant to his house to talk man to man.  Whilst waiting for the taxi the defendant unplugged the house phone and threw the telephone into a field so the ex-girlfriend could not call anyone, he then armed himself with a vegetable knife with a 3 inch blade and went to the victim's house.  The victim came out to meet the defendant who confronted him about sleeping with his girlfriend and launched himself at him.  The defendant proceeded to kick, punch and bite the victim.  He did not use the knife.  The assault only ended with the arrival of the police and the arrest of the defendant.  The defendant tried to discard the knife but was seen by the police.  The assault resulted in the victim requiring 32 stitches, glue and steri-strips for multiple lacerations to the face.  No long term serious injuries were sustained.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea and co-operation during his interview.

No previous convictions.

Offence was totally out of character and unlikely to ever happen again.

Defendant has significant obsessional personality characteristics, having suffered from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive disorder) when he was a teenager.

Provocation - the infidelity of his ex-girlfriend with a close friend (who was also a work colleague).

Defendant and the victim remain working at the same accountants after the assault, the defendant's employers thought very highly of the defendant.

Letter of remorse and exceedingly good references.

Victim had written a letter asking for leniency.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Court looked at the Harrison requirements and looked at the nature and extent of provocation subjectively.  Court stated that it was an unusual case, one of the most unusual it had seen in years.  Defendant was still working for the same employer as the victim who had written a letter to the Court asking for compassion for the defendant.  Court sentenced defendant to 180 hours community service for the grave and criminal assault and 120 hours community service for possession of an offensive weapon.  If the case had not been so unusual the Court would have had no hesitation in granting the Crown's conclusions.

 

 

 

 

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

Advocate D.M. Cadin for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We have had close regard to the Court of Appeal judgment in Harrison -v-A.G. [2004]JCA046, which gives sentencing guidance in matters of this kind.  The Court of Appeal, in that helpful judgment, spoke of deliberation with which the assault was carried out.  This was clearly not a sudden attack on a stranger in a nightclub arising on the spur of the moment; it was apparently planned with some care. 

2.        The Crown Advocate has taken us through the facts with his usual care.  Whether the blow was aimed or at random, this was a sustained attack involving punching, perhaps kicking, and biting.  Whether the offence arose as a result of loss of temper or was committed in cold blood, this was, as the circumstances have been clearly outlined to us, an act of revenge. 

3.        It took time to put in to operation, and we have also to look at the degree of force with which the blow, or blows, must have been struck.  There were many apparent facial injuries and many other injuries shown to us in the disturbing photographs.  Even the arrival of police officers did not stop the assault occurring.  There were fortunately, and perhaps surprisingly, when one looks at the photographs, no lasting injuries.  Although a kitchen knife was carried, it was not used at any time. 

4.        The nature and extent of the provocation looked at subjectively, and it was serious provocation.  What is more, this was an unusual case.  In fact I can go as far as to say, it is as unusual a case as we have come across in many years. 

5.        First, we have a detailed letter from the complainant which exonerates the defendant and specifically asks for compassion.  Even more unusually, the defendant, as a qualified and professional man, is still working with the complainant, under strict conditions, in the same office.  We have a helpful report from Mr Hollywood, which shows again, the extraordinarily difficult upbringing and the obsessive behaviour of the defendant, which is medically recognised.  The letters in mitigation we have received, are again, it appears to this Court quite extraordinary.  We cannot in any way support this type of action but as we have said, the background is unique. 

6.        The defendant has no record, and will be twenty-eight tomorrow, and we feel, in the circumstances, a payment back to the community would be a fair way to deal with the matter. 

7.        We are going to sentence you to 180 hours' community service on Count 1, and a 120 hours on Count 2 and they are both concurrent.  I have to tell you this, had it not been for the truly exceptional circumstances of your case, the Court was considering a sentence of 12 months' on Count 1; and 6 months' imprisonment on Count 2.

Authorities

Harrison -v- A.G. [2004]JCA046.

A.G. -v- Laverty [2004]JRC159.

A.G. -v- Harrington [2004]JRC106.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (Up-dated 2^nd Ed'n): paras 727 - 760; paras 708 - 712(B); paras 812 - 824.