Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC101

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th June 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Abdul Shahid Majid

 

 

1 count of:

Grave and criminal assault.

 

Age:     18.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Majid had been in a relationship for approximately 2 years.  At the time of the incident the victim was aged 22.  Majid returned to the victim's home address at 2.00 a.m. and asked to have sexual intercourse with her.  She declined.  Majid continued to pester her for intercourse and the victim requested to be left alone.  A couple of moments later the victim was pushed out of the bed by Majid using his feet.  He then got out of bed and kicked her with his bare feet.  He punched her about the head.  He slapped her to the face several times and kicked her in the stomach and ribs.  At one stage the victim fainted.  The assault continued with him continuing to punch and kick her.  At one point he threw a convector heater and a pair of boots at her.  He pinned her to the wall holding her by the throat.  The victim thought she was going to die.  The victim managed to use her mobile telephone to call for assistance.  Despite the attendance of a friend a little while later, Majid persuaded him to leave.  The victim went into her bed in an attempt to hide and when Majid returned to the bedroom he stood over her and urinated over her.  The police and ambulance were however called by the friend.  The assault had lasted for somewhere in the region of 2 hours. 

The victim was admitted to hospital where she stayed for 4 days.  The police surgeon noted that she had sustained 13 notable areas of bruising including her neck, torso, arms and hands.  Although the injuries suffered by the victim were not as severe as they could have been she had nonetheless received a beating and she was and remained at sentencing still severely traumatised by the incident including the humiliation of Majid urinating on her.

Despite the young age of Majid the Crown concluded that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The Crown acknowledged that there was mitigation in consequence of the guilty plea and also his youth.  He did not have the benefit of good character and the Social Enquiry Report indicated that he was at high risk of re-offending.  In considering its conclusions the Crown also had regard to the Victim Impact Statement which had been prepared.

The defence challenged the content of the Victim Impact Statement on the basis that it contained matters outside the scope of the incident for which Majid was to be sentenced.  The defence emphasised the guilty plea and the young age of Majid and the fact that he was only 16 when the relationship was formed and therefore was inexperienced.  He had been drinking and had a low tolerance of alcohol.  He acknowledged that he had difficulty in dealing with his jealous feelings.  The victim however had sent out confusing signals as following the arrest she had visited him in prison, sent him a Valentine's Card and provided him with funds whilst in prison.  It was acknowledged that his behaviour was unacceptable but it had to be put into the context of the relationship.  The defence moved for a custodial sentence of between 6 and 9 months' Youth Detention.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

One offence of affray for which he received 6 months' Youth Detention and two offences of possession of cannabis for which he received non-custodial sentences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count :

18 months' youth detention.

(It was noted that the Crown indicated that but for his age they would have moved for a 2 year sentence of imprisonment).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court described the incident as a terrifying one for the victim including the humiliation and degrading incident of being urinated upon.  The incident lasted for some 2 hours including punching and slapping and kicking with the bare foot and throwing objects at her.  When the friend and the police arrived the defendant sought to intimidate the victim into not saying anything.  The Court having regard to the Victim Impact Statement acknowledged that it was very difficult it not impossible to separate the particular assault from the course of the conduct of the relationship.  The Court was only to sentence in relation to the incident itself.  Therefore the Court concluded that it was not going to place any weight on the Victim Impact Statement and would assume the norm in relation to the impact that such an incident would have upon a victim.  The Court acknowledged that there were important mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and his youth which was the most powerful mitigating factor.  The Court was satisfied that the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified.  The defence's suggestion of a 6 - 9 months' Youth Detention was too low.  The Court considered the Crown's conclusions as the minimum period that could be imposed for an assault of this sort.

 

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

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This must have been a terrifying incident for the victim.  The defendant came home drunk at 2 a.m. and because she would not have sex with him when he wanted it, he gave her a beating which lasted intermittently over 2 hours.  It involved punching, slapping, kicking (admittedly with bare feet), throwing things at her and putting his hands around her neck.  It culminated in the defendant urinating over the victim, a degrading and humiliating act.  The victim suffered considerable bruising and it is fortunate that the injuries were not more severe. 

2.        Even when a friend came in answer to a telephone call the victim had managed to make on her mobile phone, and when the police came, the defendant sought to intimidate her into denying that anything was wrong. 

3.        We have had a Victim Impact Statement, prepared by the clinical psychologist, and Mrs Pearmain has been critical of that Statement.  She says that it deals with the consequences of the whole of the two year relationship between the victim and the defendant and the effect that this has had on the victim.  Only in a re-drafted version did the Statement in any way purport to relate the effect on the victim to the particular assault. 

4.        We can understand that it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the effect of a particular assault from the effect of conduct over a long relationship.  The Court is here to sentence the defendant for what he did on the 3^rd February; it is not here to sentence him for anything else he may have done during the course of the relationship.  It would be wholly unfair to punish him for that.  He has not been charged with any other offence and has not had the opportunity of giving his side of events throughout the relationship. 

5.        In the circumstances, we have concluded that, in this particular case, we cannot place any weight on the Victim Impact Statement.  The Court will proceed purely on the basis that it is to be expected, in the normal course of events, that a woman assaulted in the manner in which this woman was assaulted is likely to suffer shock, distress, fear and humiliation.

6.        We turn now to consider the mitigation.  A very important factor is that the defendant has pleaded guilty, and this has spared the victim from the ordeal of giving evidence.  He does not have a bad previous record although he has a previous conviction for affray, for which he was sentenced to youth detention. 

7.        We have considered all that is in the Social Enquiry Report and we have listened to Mrs Pearmain: since the assault the victim has apparently maintained some contact with the defendant by visiting him in prison, sending him a card and so forth.  We do not think that that is relevant to assessing the right punishment for what the defendant did in this assault. 

8.        The most powerful mitigation in his case is his youth.  He is still only 18, the relationship having started when he was 16.  Mrs Pearmain accepts that youth detention is inevitable.  In our judgment she was right to do so.  We have, of course, carefully considered the terms of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 and we are satisfied that the offending in this case was so serious that a non-custodial penalty cannot be justified.

9.        Mrs Pearmain suggested some 6 - 9 months.  In our judgment that is far too low for what the defendant did on this occasion.  We think that the conclusions moved for by the Crown are the minimum that can be imposed.  Had the defendant been any older a longer sentence would have been appropriate. 

10.      In the circumstances we impose a sentence of 18 months' youth detention and we warn you that you may be subject to supervision when you are released.

Authorities

Mallet -v- Attorney General [2000] JLR 256.

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (Second Edition) pages 266 - 271.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994.