Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/220

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2nd November 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Rejus Petrulaitis

 

 

1 count of:	grave and criminal assault (count 1).
1 count of:	resisting a Police Officer in the execution of her duty (count 2).

 

 

Age:     26        

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Petrulaitis entered the United Kingdom on a tourist visa which then expired.  He did not renew the visa and arrived in Jersey  in July 2001 and undertook work in Jersey as an illegal entrant.  Whilst in an intoxicated state he met the 27 year old female victim who was in the company of her mother and other members of her family.  Petrulaitis generally made a nuisance of himself, but his attentions were more amorous than aggressive.  The victim and her group left the nightclub and were followed by Petrulaitis.  At no time did the victim encourage Petrulaitis in his attention and repeatedly asked him to leave her alone and to go away.  

At one stage the victim and her group managed to put some distance between themselves and Petrulaitis, but he then ran up shouting and acting aggressively.  He appeared to be attempting to pick a fight with the young man who was in the group and when the victim intervened, in an effort to calm the situation down, she was punched once to the face with some force by Petrulaitis.  She fell to the floor suffering various abrasions to her body and there was an issue as to whether or not the punch caused her to lose consciousness or not.  Her major injury was a laceration to her upper lip which required twelve stitches.  Petrulaitis immediately ran from the scene and was apprehended by two passers by.  The police arrived and arrested Petrulaitis but he struggled and was abusive during the arrest process. (count 2).

During a subsequent interview Petrulaitis stated that he had been very drunk and whilst he could recollect meeting the victim in the nightclub, he had no recollection of the assault.  He expressed remorse for his behaviour and apologised. 

The Crown took as its starting point a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment.  The aggravating factors were that Petrulaitis was heavily intoxicated.  There was an element of stalking or pursuing the victim through the streets of St. Helier, despite her numerous requests that he leave her and her family alone.  Although only one punch was struck, the injuries sustained were not insignificant and the entire incident must have been a frightening one for all concerned.     

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown acknowledged that mitigation was available to Petrulaitis in respect of his guilty plea and the fact that this was his first offence.  He was therefore of previous good character.  He was also deserving of credit for his acknowledgment that he had acted inappropriately and for his apology for his behaviour. 

Defence Counsel emphasised the above matters of mitigation and character references were produced to the Court, together with a letter of apology from Petrulaitis to the Court, the victim and to the police.  The Social Enquiry Report had recommended a Community Service Order by way of a penalty, had Petrulaitis not been an illegal entrant.  Defence Counsel therefore submitted that the conclusions sought by the Crown were excessive, particularly having regard to a review of recent cases in which it was suggested that the nature of the assaults and/or injuries sustained by other victims had resulted in lesser sentences being imposed upon the accused in such cases.  

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1: 18 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

The offence was out of character and a good deal of mitigation was available to the accused.  This was a serious assault on a woman and was an assault upon which the Court took a serious view.  Given the circumstances, any consideration of a Community service Order was impossible, had the Court been minded to consider it, which the Court might have done, given the fact that the accused has spent three months custody.  A prison sentence was therefore inevitable.  Taking into account the matters which had been put in mitigation, the Court concluded that the sentence would be reduced from the conclusions sought.   

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Philpott for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Stand up, please, Petrulaitis.  Although this offence was out of character, and there is a good deal of mitigation which has been put very clearly by your counsel, this was a serious assault on a woman and it is an assault about which the Court takes a serious view.

2.        Given the circumstances, any consideration of community service is impossible, had we been minded to consider it, as indeed we might well have done, due to the fact that you have already spent three months in custody.  A prison sentence is thus, in this case, inevitable.

3.        Taking into account the matters put in mitigation by your counsel, the sentence will be reduced from the conclusions of the learned Attorney General.  On count 1, you will go to prison for nine months; on count 2, you will go to prison for one month, to be served concurrently.

 

 

 

Authorities

Mallet-v-AG (14^th July, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/134] CofA.

Le Monnier-v-AG (27^th October, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/208].

AG-v-Mallet (24^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/87].

AG-v-Seaward (10^th November, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/222].

AG-v-Fagan (15^th June, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/137].

AG-v-de Freitas (20^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/86B].

AG-v-Porteous (15^th June, 2001) Jersey Unreported; 2001/138].

AG-v-Ross (27^th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/165].