Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2014]JRC130A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 June 2014

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Milner and Liston.

The Attorney General

-v-

Adrian Lee Huet

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of 8^th December, 2013, Huet assaulted an unidentified man in Hope Street.  Two police officers witnessed the assault.  Huet punched the victim, then threw him against a wall and then to the ground, before kicking him once to the body.  He then ran away and was chased by officers.  The victim was seen to be bleeding from his face, but there was no medical evidence as he left the scene and could not be traced. 

In interview, Huet claimed not to remember anything. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, residual youth, good work record, committed father. 

Previous Convictions:

Three: grave and criminal assault, breach of the peace by fighting and drunk and disorderly. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment.

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 12 months taking effect from the day of release from prison.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

9 months' imprisonment.

Exclusion Order made excluding the defendant from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category licensed premises excluding the Multiplex Cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, Jersey Airport, the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House for a period of 12 months taking effect from the day of release from prison.

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Now Huet, you have much to be proud of. You have overcome a most difficult upbringing, you have an excellent work record which is supported by the fact that your employer, quite apart from writing a glowing reference in your support, has taken the trouble to come to Court to support you.  You have a stable relationship with your partner and now you have a daughter to whom it is clear you are a devoted father.  But there appears to be another side to you.  Your trouble is that when you drink you become aggressive and you become prone to react violently to actual or perceived provocation.  And that is what happened on this occasion.  You were very drunk, you got into an altercation with the victim who then punched you, you completely overreacted by punching him back once, wrestling him to the ground and then kicking him once to the body, whilst he was on the ground.  You then had to be chased by the police in order to arrest you. 

2.        The unusual feature of this case is that your victim has never been identified.  He was told to stay there by the police but he had gone by the time they came back from chasing you.  The police officer saw the only injury was a cut to either his lip or his nose which was causing some bleeding, so we do proceed on the basis that has been agreed between the Crown and your advocate that there was provocation, namely one punch from the victim, and there was no injury caused to him except the cut.  If you had not done this before, I have little doubt that the Court would probably have been able to agree with your advocate's request for a non-custodial sentence.  The difficulty is that it is not the first time.  You have got a conviction for grave and criminal assault in 2011 and, admittedly, you were 18 but it is not that long ago, on the same occasion you were also dealt with for breach of the peace by fighting, which was a different occasion.  You have also got a conviction for being drunk and disorderly in February 2012.  We accept that the grave and criminal assault was clearly not of the most serious type because you were dealt with in the Magistrate's Court and you were given community service of 70 hours.  On the second occasion you were placed on probation and you attended the alcohol study group which one would have hoped might have helped.  It may have helped but not sufficiently because you have now reoffended with exactly the same sort of conduct fuelled again by excess alcohol. 

3.        I have to tell you the Court has found this a very difficult decision.  We have listened very carefully to everything your advocate has said, we have read your letter, we have read the references which have been supplied, we have noted your guilty plea and we have taken account of your age.  But the Court's policy is clear that drink-fuelled violence on the streets of St Helier will, save in exceptional circumstances, attract a prison sentence.  This is not only to deter others but it is also to reflect the community's fear and concern about such behaviour.  People want to feel safe when they are walking out for a night in St Helier, tourists want to feel safe.  The sort of violence which you handed out causes people to be frightened. 

4.        Now in your case, as we say, it is the second time.  Because of that, notwithstanding the very powerful mitigation we do not think we can proceed other than by way of a prison sentence.  But we want to reflect all that is good about you and all that has been said in your favour by passing a lesser sentence.  We want to emphasise this is not to be taken as a precedent.  The Crown's conclusion of 12 months' was absolutely right but we want to exercise mercy because of the various factors which your advocate has so strongly urged on your behalf.  Nevertheless we cannot proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  What we do hope is that during your time in prison you will attend courses which are available to deal with your drinking problem and your tendency to get aggressive when drunk. 

5.        The sentence we are going to impose is one of 9 months' imprisonment and we also impose the exclusion order as requested, so that is from 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 7^th category premises, except those listed, for a period of 12 months from when you are released.  We hope that that will also help cement what we hope you will achieve in prison, which is to crack this tendency to drink and to become violent when drinking.  That is the sentence of the Court. 

Authorities

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG v O'Shea [2010] JRC 040.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (3rd Edition).