Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault - common assault.

[2017JRC186

Royal Court

(Samedi)

3 November 2017

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner and Jurats Olsen and Sparrow

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Stephen Murphy

Nathan Peter Harrison

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

Ryan Stephen Murphy

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault (Count 1).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 17^th July, 2017, the defendants were sitting on a bench with friends, on the promenade near Green Street slipway, drinking alcohol; their victim was sitting on a bench nearby, he had also consumed alcohol and - so far as could be ascertained - had previously been involved in some friendly social interaction with the others.  Murphy approached the victim and delivered a swinging slap to his face, stepped back then punched him hard to the left jaw, knocking him unconscious.  Murphy, described as laughing, delivered at least three more hard punches to the victim; one of their group showed concern for the victim, after which Harrison approached and slapped the clearly unconscious victim several times.  Murphy then poured a drink over the victim and delivered a further two hard slaps to his face before a female in their group ushered him away.  Harrison approached again and delivered a further five hard slaps to the victim's face before also being moved away.  Harrison and Murphy returned, picked the recovering victim up by the arms and dragged him away from the immediate area.  Witnesses who had seen the incident develop from a balcony above intercepted the trio and moved Harrison and Murphy away from the victim; another witness had recorded much of the incident on his mobile phone, evidence he provided to the police.  Harrison and Murphy were both aggressive towards police officers while being detained, Harrison indicating he was prepared to 'smash' a female officer, unlike Murphy who said that he would only 'take on' a male officer.  The victim, who recovered consciousness soon afterwards, was relatively fortunate in that his injuries were relatively minor consisting of a swollen face and small lacerations.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  The defendant supplied supportive references but the value of his letter of remorse was limited as it focused more on the impact on his own circumstances than those of the victim.

Previous Convictions:

The defendant also had 13 previous convictions, all in Jersey, including aiding and abetting kidnap, affray, grave and criminal assault, common assault and possession of drugs with intent to supply; he had served five previous custodial sentences, the longest being 8 years.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 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, Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

At the outset Commissioner Birt warned counsel for the defendant that the Court, having read the papers, might take the view that the Crown's conclusions were 'on the low side'.

With regard to the defendant the Court noted that alcohol had again played a part in his offending, that he punched and slapped the victim (it being immaterial exactly how many times) then slapped him again and indicated they had thought 18 months might be the correct sentence; however noting his changes in attitude and stated determination to reform felt able to adopt the Crown's conclusions.

Conclusions granted.

Nathan Peter Harrison

1 count of:

Common assault (Count 1).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Murphy above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  The defendant had the benefit of a good work record and provided a letter of apology to the victim.

Previous Convictions:

The defendant had 13 previous convictions including grave and criminal assault, assaulting and obstructing police officers, damage to property and Class A, B & C drugs offences, some in Jersey, some in UK; none attracted custodial sentences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

8 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, Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 2 years from date of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

A 12 month Probation Order.

In the light of the Social Enquiry and Psychiatric Reports relating to the defendant, his comparatively limited initial involvement, the fact he had served the equivalent of just over a 5 months sentence and his expressed desire to accept support being offered through the reports and his undertakings of compliance the Court felt able to avoid imposing further custody or community service.

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, Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 12 months from date of sentence.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. N. Heywood for Murphy.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Harrison.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Mr Murphy, you attacked the victim by punching and slapping him four times.  We do not think it makes any difference how many punches and how many slaps.  The result was that he was knocked unconscious.  You then slapped him again twice when he was unconscious.  Fortunately he recovered consciousness quickly and there has been no serious or continuing injury. 

2.        You have a very poor record with a number of convictions for assault; drink played its part on this occasion and the Court has repeatedly said that drunken assaults will almost invariably result in a prison sentence.  Now we have noted the fact that you pleaded guilty and we have read your letter and the letters of support, but given your record we think 18 months would have been the correct sentence.  But we note that at long last, as your advocate said, you are perhaps seeing the light.  You realise you have wasted your life so far, going into prison, out again, getting into trouble, going back to prison, and you say you are determined to change and there is some support for that in the probation report.  You say you are determined to make use of what is available in prison by way of help.  So simply because of that, and trusting that what you are saying is correct, we are not going to increase the sentence beyond the Crown's conclusions.

3.        The sentence on the count that you face is 15 months' imprisonment.

4.        We are going to make an Exclusion Order in the terms requested for a period of 2 years from today. 

5.        Harrison, your part was comparatively limited.  You were not party to the initial assault by Murphy but after the victim was unconscious you slapped him several times.  You have however served the equivalent of 5 months' imprisonment on remand already. 

6.        We have also seen the probation report and, most importantly, the psychiatric report.  This shows that you are suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the tragic events concerning your son and your former partner.  There is a strong recommendation from the psychiatrist that you would benefit from some specified psychological treatment that he describes.  So, putting together the time you have already served, the limited nature of your involvement in the assault and the psychiatric report, we agree that it is not necessary to impose a prison sentence nor is it necessary to impose community service.  However we are going to impose a Probation Order in the hope this will assist you in avoiding repeating such conduct.

7.        We are going to impose a Probation Order of 12 months and that order will contain the usual conditions.  But it will certainly say that you must comply with any action plan set by the Probation Service and attend any programmes that they tell you to. Now that is, in this occasions, going to include the psychological programmes recommended by the psychiatrist; so it will be a condition, as well as the usual ones, that you attend any programmes set by the Probation Service.  I must warn you that if you do not comply with what the probation officer tells you or if you do not turn up to meetings, then you can be brought back here and if you are, the likely course is that you will go to prison. 

8.        As to an Exclusion Order we see no reason whatsoever not to include an Exclusion Order in the terms requested by the Crown, which does not exclude restaurants; so there is nothing to stop you socialising with your family but you may not go into the other types of licensed premises.  We impose that for 12 months in the terms requested by the Crown. 

Authorities

AG-v-Batiste [2017] JRC 158.

AG-v-Harrison [2015] JRC 202.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.