Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC171

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3^rd October, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Alan James Ford

 

 

1 count of:	Being in an intoxicated condition in an aerodrome, contrary to Regulation 9 (t) of the Aerodrome (Jersey) Regulations, 1965, as amended (Count 1);
1 count of:	Violently resisting police, in the execution of their duty (Count 2);
1 count of	Grave and criminal assault (Count 3).

 

 

Age:     23.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Between April and September, 2003 Ford was in custody in relation to an office of grave and criminal assault to which he pleaded not guilty and in respect of which he was acquitted in September, 2003.  In June, 2003 his mother died and the Royal Court granted him conditional bail to attend his mother's funeral in the UK.

 

Upon his return to the Island he was intoxicated, aggressive and abusive when he arrived in Jersey at the Airport.  His luggage had been mislaid albeit one item was located on the aeroplane.  He was spoken to by Police Officers and told that his luggage would be forwarded once it arrived in the Island. Before eventually leaving the Airport he was aggressive and abusive in the Arrivals Hall in the presence of members of the Public.  He left the Airport in a taxi but returned shortly after the taxi driver was concerned that Ford was unable to pay his fare.  Ford was once again witnessed to be aggressive and abusive in the Arrivals Hall and he was spoken to by Special Branch Officers.  He refused to calm down and was arrested for being drunk.  Ford was escorted into the Special Branch suite of offices.  As the two Officers entered the cell with Ford be began to struggle violently.  Ford was shouting and swearing and the Officers struggled to restrain Ford.  Eventually the Officers managed to restrain Ford face down on the cell bench and whilst one of the Officers went to get quick cuffs, the other Officer spoke to Ford with a view to calming him down.  This had some effect to the extent that when the Officer returned Ford was sitting on the bench.  However, upon the entry of the other Officer, Ford once again became violent and struggled.  He managed to stand on the cell bench holding one of the Officer's neck tie firmly in both hands.  The tie constricted around the Officer's neck but at no point was the Officer's breathing significantly impaired.  The Officers discontinued their struggle with Ford and after approximately 90 seconds during which period Ford remained excitable and abusive, Ford stated that he would let go of the tie if the Officers let him go.  The Officers agreed to this in the knowledge that they would then be able to arrest him when appropriate resources were available.

 

Ford left the Arrivals Hall and met the Deputy Governor of the Prison who offered Ford a lift to the Prison.  On the journey from the Airport, Ford asked to be dropped at a nearby Public House but the Deputy Governor declined and then stopped the vehicle and allowed Ford out.  Officers then attended in the area of Les Quennevais Precinct and Ford was eventually arrested and taken to Police Headquarters.  Throughout the journey he made threats to the Police Officers and their families and struggled violently.  He had to be restrained throughout the journey.  His behaviour upon arrival at Police Headquarters was such that he had to be placed in a cell using a recognised cell placement procedure.

 

The Officer subjected to the grave and criminal assault sustained a red mark to his neck.  In consequence he was off work for approximately 10 weeks.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown gave credit for his guilty pleas which had been entered on Indictment.  Whilst Ford has an extensive criminal record including previous offences for violence and in particular an assault on the Police and resisting arrest, he was still entitled to some residual credit for his youth.  According to the Social Enquiry Report Ford was now motivated to change his life style and to address his alcohol problem.  Ford had also offered an apology to the Officers and to the airport staff in general.

 

The Crown moved for a custodial sentence but in the alternative stated that if there was to be a non-custodial sentence then any Probation Order should be a lengthy one so as to give Ford every opportunity and every assistance to break his cycle of offending.

 

The Defence acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and could say nothing to detract from the Defendant's conduct.  However, the Defence emphasised that the two months that he had spent on remand in relation to the other offence of which he was acquitted would not count towards his ultimate sentence.  This was a traumatic time because his mother was ill and despite a number of bail applications they had all been refused.  There was a strong mother/son relationship.  Ford was devastated when his mother died particularly as he had not seen her prior to her death.  After her funeral he had consumed alcohol which was the first time for two months and he therefore had a low tolerance to the alcohol.  The incident in Jersey occurred because of the drink.  It was not excusable behaviour but it was to be noted that Ford did not cause any serious harm to the Police Officer.  Ford was sorry for his behaviour and he had written to the Court expressing his deep regret.

 

The Defence contended that a Probation Order would be appropriate and would be beneficial not only for Ford but for the public at large as if Ford were simply sentenced to a further period in prison, upon his release there would be no assistance or control over him.  Probation would pose a real test for him.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous including numerous for dishonesty, public order, assaults, including assault on a Police Officer and resisting arrest on a number of occasions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent
Count 3:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent

 

 

Exclusion Order sought to take effect at conclusion of custodial sentence: 12 months' from all licensed premises, save for 6^th category licences.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Defendant had been granted bail by the Royal Court on compassionate grounds and yet he returned to the Island drunk and disorderly using foul language and threats.  The grave and criminal assault on the Officer - whilst there was no intention to cause serious injury - was a frightening and unpleasant assault.

 

Mitigation:  He had a guilty plea and there was also the history to the offending which was relevant in that he had been in custody for some two months in relation to another offence of which he was acquitted but for which time on remand which could not be taken in account.  Ford was a young man aged 23 and the bereavement was a traumatic event for him.  The Social Enquiry Report made it clear that he was addicted to alcohol and that he would benefit from counselling.

 

The Court placed Ford on Probation for 12 months on the usual terms together with a 12 months' exclusion order from all licensed premises save for 6^th category licenses which would run at the same time as the Probation Order and therefore would expire at the same time as the Probation Order.

 

The Court emphasised that the Order must be complied with and if Ford went into licensed premises then it was highly likely that he would be sentenced to imprisonment.  He was advised to take advantage of the assistance provided by the Probation Officer and the Court expressed the hope that he would make something of his life.

 

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. MacRae for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This Defendant was granted bail by this Court on compassionate grounds.  When he returned to the jurisdiction he was drunk and behaved in a grossly disorderly and unacceptable way at the airport.  He used foul language and he issued threats.  During the course of these events he committed a grave and criminal assault upon a police officer by holding his tie and tightening it around his neck for some 90 seconds. 

2.        There is no doubt that he intended to do this but we accept that there was in fact no intention to cause the officer serious harm.  It was nonetheless a frightening and unpleasant assault. 

3.        In mitigation the Defendant has pleaded guilty to the indictment. 

4.        There is a history to the offending which is however relevant.  Ford has been in custody since 28^th April 2003.  Between that date and 1^st July, he was on remand only, in relation to a charge of grave and criminal assault of which he was acquitted by a jury on 11^th September.  That period of remand cannot now be taken into account by the prison authorities in the computation of any sentence of imprisonment imposed for these offences.  In round terms Ford has been in custody on remand for nearly six months which is the equivalent, taking account of the usual remission for good behaviour, of a sentence of between eight and nine months' imprisonment. 

5.        At the time when Ford committed these offences he was returning from the funeral of this mother.  He is a young man of twenty-three and his bereavement no doubt was a traumatic event for him particularly as he had been in custody during his mother's last illness. 

6.        There are matters set out in the Social Enquiry Report, in particular addiction to alcohol which indicate that Ford would benefit from probation supervision.  The Crown Advocate, in a sense, put his conclusions to us in the alternative and Defence Counsel suggested that a sentence of probation would be a more constructive outcome given the history to these offences. 

7.        We agree and, Ford, we are going to place you on probation for a period of 12 months subject to the usual conditions; that you be of good behaviour during that time and that you live and work as directed by your Probation Officer.  We are also going to impose - and we do this in a sense to be helpful to you - an Exclusion Order, excluding you from licensed premises with the exception of premises holding a 6^th category licence for a period of twelve months which will expire with the Probation Order.  We want you to understand that that Order must be complied with and if you go into licensed premises during the next twelve months you will be very likely sent to prison as a result.  We hope that you will take advantage of the advice that you will receive from the Probation Officer and that you will make something of your life in the future.  You are now free to leave the Court.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Waller (25^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/211]

A. G. -v- Brown (28^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/35]

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in The Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): p.p.271-5