Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC078

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th April 2009

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Pierre Destrieux

Maciej Grodowski

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

Paul Pierre Destrieux

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault. (Count 1).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 1^st December, 2008, both Destrieux and Grodowski were in the Havana Club.  They were known to each other having worked at the same restaurant 18 months previously.  However they had since fallen out with one another.  Destrieux was with his fiancée on the night in question.

Towards the end of the evening Grodowski, who was intoxicated, approached Destrieux while the latter was standing at the bar with his fiancée.  Grodowski then proceeded to tap Destrieux on the arm repeatedly, gesticulating and arguing.  Eventually, just as Destrieux and his fiancée were going to leave, Grodowski punched Destrieux once in the face, later alleging that Destrieux had said something to annoy him.

Destrieux stumbled backwards, still holding a champagne glass.  When he looked up, he saw his fiancée remonstrating with Grodowski, and Grodowski's hands on her shoulders.  Destrieux admitted that he had then "lost the plot", and that he had intentionally thrown his glass in Grodowski's face on the spur of the moment.  The glass shattered and caused several lacerations which bled.  Both men then wrestled on the floor momentarily before being separated and thrown out of the Club by the doormen.

Both were subsequently arrested.  Grodowski admitted punching Destrieux and blamed his actions on the large amount of alcohol that he had drunk.  Destrieux admitted throwing the glass at Grodowski in retaliation.  Both admitted that they could easily have avoided the confrontation.  Grodowski needed 11 stitches to lacerations in his forehead and will be left with minor scarring.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation, clean record, remorse, good character, low risk of re-offending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 months' imprisonment.

Deportation not sought at this time.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In relation to Destrieux, while it said that any glassing will normally attract a prison sentence, having regard to the unusual circumstances of this particular case, the Court felt able to order a non-custodial alternative.

Count 1:

210 hours' community service order or 15 months' imprisonment in default.

No recommendation made for deportation.

Maciej Grodowski

1 count of:

Assault. (Count 2).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Destrieux above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation, youth, clean record, remorse, good character, very low risk of re-offending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 2

£500 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Fine to be paid at a rate of £40 per week.

No recommendation made for deportation.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for Destrieux.

Advocate O. A. Blakeley for Grodowski.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        It seems clear from the summary of facts that Grodowski was the instigator of the events on the night in question.  There was a history between the two going back to when they had worked together.  After repeatedly tapping Destrieux, he eventually punched Destrieux in the face.  This appears to have been completely unprovoked.  Destrieux then retaliated by throwing the glass he was holding at Grodowski.  It struck him in the face.  The two defendants then wrestled together and fell to the floor until they were pulled apart.  Grodowski suffered cuts to his face and he will be left with some residual scarring.  We are going to deal with Grodowski first.

2.        We take into account his guilty plea, the fact that he has no previous convictions, his good work record and the fact that he is assessed as being at very low risk of re-offending.  We accept that this case would normally be dealt with in the Magistrate's Court.  We agree therefore that a fine is the correct way of dealing with it and we think the Crown's conclusions are correct.

3.        The sentence of the Court is a fine of £500 which must be paid at the rate of £40 per week and there will be a prison sentence of 3 months in default if he should not pay the fine when he should pay it.

4.        Now we turn to Mr Destrieux.  He has pleaded guilty and was very co-operative with the Police; indeed he called them after the incident.  He too has a good character, not simply in the sense of having no previous convictions but a positive good character as we have seen from the letters and references that we have.  He too is assessed by probation as being at low risk of re-offending and is described as not being an aggressive person at all and he is clearly remorseful.  We take into account the circumstances of the offence.  It was clearly contributed to by alcohol but it was a spontaneous reaction to receiving an unprovoked punch followed by a belief that Grodowski was getting involved in a physical altercation with his fiancée. 

5.        The Court has repeatedly said that glassing will normally attract a prison sentence.  This is because of the danger of really serious injury which can result and the fact that the Court is determined to do what it can to try and stamp out the considerable degree of violence which is to be found in the streets of St Helier these days.  But the Court must always marry up that policy with the circumstances of the individual offence.  We have had regard to the unusual circumstances of this case, the mitigation which we have already described and to the other mitigation which appears on the papers before us.  Taking all these matters into account and not without some hesitation the Court concludes that it can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  We think the Crown has moved for the correct prison sentence, which is one of 15 months' imprisonment and that is what we would have imposed had we imposed a prison sentence but we think we can deal with it by way of community service.

6.        You will therefore carry out 210 hours' community service on the one count you face.

Authorities

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

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.