Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Common assault

[2022]JRC108

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 May 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Josh Clark Lyons

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize trial on 18^th March 2022 to the following charge:

Age:  28. 

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant, who was from Jersey, met the Complainant online in early 2021 and they met in person in London some months later.  Soon after they met, they became engaged.  The Defendant began renting a flat in London where the couple would spent much of their time together.  A month or so before the offence of which he was convicted, an argument took place at the London flat which was recorded by the complainant on her mobile telephone.  During that recording (the content of which was accepted at trial), the Defendant threatened to slap the complainant, said that he would teach her a lesson about how she should treat men if she did not want them to be violent and made further misogynistic comments.   This recording was relied upon both at trial as bad character evidence and at sentence as providing a context to what subsequently occurred.  In early August 2021 the Complainant travelled with the Defendant to Jersey to meet his friends and family.  In the afternoon of 4^th August an argument arose between the couple at the Defendant's Jersey flat about ex-partners.  This led to them examining each other's mobile phones.  The complainant discovered that the Defendant had not "blocked" contact from certain ex-partners and remonstrated with him about this, shouting in his face.  The Defendant put his hand around the Complainant's throat and pushed her away from him.  She stumbled and twisted her ankle on the floor but got up and the argument continued.  Shortly afterwards the Complainant left the Defendant's flat and checked into a local hotel, leaving the Island the following day.  She ended the relationship just under two weeks later.  The Defendant was tried in respect of four offences of Grave and Criminal assault, but he was acquitted of these following a five-day assize trial.  His conviction for common assault was in the alternative to the first of the alleged grave and criminal assaults and the trial judge ruled under Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law, 2018 that the Defendant would be sentenced on the version of events that he put forward at trial.

Details of Mitigation:

Previous good character, positive references, family support.  Mitigation was largely advanced on the basis that the complainant had acted aggressively and was responsible for many of the wider difficulties in the relationship. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Restraining Order sought under Article 5 of Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

No restraining order imposed - the parties were living in separate jurisdictions and there was no evidence of contact between them since the relationship ended.

S. C. Thomas Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. S. Steenson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We are going to set out the reasons for the sentence we are going to impose and the reasons for the decisions that I made as a single judge earlier on this afternoon in a written judgment which will follow in due course and so all we are going to do this evening is simply to announce with brief words what our decision is.

2.        It is of concern to us that nearly all the emphasis in the plea in mitigation appears to have been on blaming the victim, and the fact is that the Defendant has been found guilty of a common assault upon the victim and the Court takes seriously any conviction for domestic violence.  In our view the offence does warrant a sentence of imprisonment but lower than that moved for by the Prosecution having taken into account the extensive mitigation available to the Defendant, his good character, the many letters of support and the support of his family and friends who we know are in Court.  We do note however that there is no letter from the Defendant expressing remorse for the common assault he committed or acceptance from the Defendant of any concerns about his relationships with women.  The sentence that we will impose will be converted into Community Service.

3.        On Count 1, common assault you are sentenced to 100 hours' Community Service Order which is the equivalent of 4 months' imprisonment.

4.        In terms of the restraining order we do not see sufficient justification for such an order to be made on the facts of this case and therefore we decline to make one. 

5.        We will adjourn the Defence application for costs to a date to be fixed. 

Authorities

Coelho v AG [2020] (2) JLR 367. 

AG v Rawlinson [2019] JRC 121. 

AG v Rebelo [2014] JRC 067. 

AG v Richomme [2013] JRC 223. 

AG v Holzmeier [2014] JRC 120A.