BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Nisbet [2020] JRC 167 (19 August 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2020/2020_167.html Cite as: [2020] JRC 167 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - Manslaughter
|
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Thomas, Ronge and Christensen. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Andrew Charles Nisbet
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19th June, 2009, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
|
1 count of: |
Manslaughter (Count 2). |
Age: 41.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
At the time of the offence, the defendant was residing in a one bedroom annex at his parents' property with his partner and their 18-month-old son. The defendant wanted to continue living there long term and began making requests to his parents to make significant alterations to the annex. His parents did not consider the annex to be suitable long-term accommodation. This caused frustration to the defendant and tension between him and his parents. The defendant suffers from Autism and his mental health deteriorated. Adult Mental Health Services became involved. The defendant's parents eventually served an eviction notice on the defendant as no agreement could be reached.
On the 6th August, 2020, at 6pm the defendant's mother met with the defendant and his partner in the kitchen of the parental home. The defendant proposed a further living arrangement proposal. The defendant's mother did not agree to the proposal and the defendant's partner left the room. The defendant's father was sitting in the room next door to the kitchen. He heard his wife scream. He entered the kitchen and found his wife lying on the floor bleeding from her neck. The defendant was standing over her with a Leatherman knife in his hand. A struggle ensued as the defendant would not allow his father to approach his wife. The defendant's father fought him off with a walking stick and eventually managed to lock the defendant outside of the kitchen. Emergency services were called.
The defendant's mother was pronounced dead upon arrival at hospital. She died from a single stab wound to the left side of her neck.
The defendant was transferred to Brockfield House, following an order of the Court in 29th August 2019. The defendant underwent several assessments. On 19th June, 2020, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
Order sought for a treatment order under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 with special restrictions without a limit of time.
Order sought that reports shall be provided at 12 months intervals detailing the treatment the Defendant is undergoing, the progress he is making, and the responsible medical officer's opinion as to whether the restrictions should continue in effect.
Restraining order sought for an indeterminate period in the following terms:
1. That the Defendant be prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, his father, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable;
2. That the Defendant be prohibited from entering a [named] road in the Parish of St. Peter;
3. That the Defendant be prohibited from attending at the home address of his father, or any other address where he knows his father to be residing, or loitering within 100 metres thereof;
4. That the Defendant be prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, his brother, his brother's wife, or their children, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable;
5. That the Defendant be prohibited from entering a [named] road in the Parish of St. Peter;
6. That the Defendant be prohibited from attending at the premises known as his brother's home address, or any other address where he knows his brother to be residing, or loitering within 100 metres thereof;
7. That the Defendant be prohibited from attending the school of his brother's children, or loitering within 100 metres thereof;
8. That should the Defendant see or come into contact with any of the persons mentioned in this Order in any public or private place, he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this Order.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Order made that the defendant shall be subject to a treatment order for an indefinite period pursuant to Article 65 of the 2016 Law, to be carried out at Brockfield House, an approved establishment in accordance with Article 5 of the 2016 Law, where the defendant is already present by virtue of the Court's previous orders.
Order made that the defendant shall be subject to a restriction order for an indefinite period pursuant to Article 68 of the 2016 Law.
Granted the defendant leave of absence from Brockfield House in circumstances where the responsible medical officer believes it necessary in the interests of the patient's health or safety, the protection of other persons, or it is appropriate for the treatment of the defendant, on the condition that in those circumstances the defendant is accompanied by at least one member of staff from Brockfield House;.
Ordered that the defendant shall be examined by his responsible medical officer at intervals of not less than nine months, and that written reports of such examinations shall be sent to Her Majesty's Attorney General containing the responsible medical officer's opinion as to whether the restriction order should continue in effect, and opinion as to where any further treatment of the defendant is to be carried out.
The Court ordered the restraining order sought pursuant to Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law, 2008, as amended by the Telecommunications (Amendment No 3) and Crime (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 2016, for an indefinite period.
In regards to order 7 the Court amended the wording so that the Defendant be prohibited from attending the school of his brother's children, or any other school which the children may be attending, or loitering within 100 metres thereof.
M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. We will set out our reasons in a judgment that will follow in due course, but in the light of the unequivocal medical evidence we agree with the recommendations of the Crown which have of course been accepted by the defence.
2. Accordingly, we make a treatment order pursuant to Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 and we impose restrictions pursuant to Article 68 for an indeterminate period. There should only be permission for leave of absence in circumstances where the responsible medical officer believes it necessary in the interest of the patient's health or safety or the protection of other persons, and in those circumstances the defendant must be accompanied at all times, or, where the responsible medical officer believes it appropriate for the treatment of the defendant, for accompanied leave of absence to take place and again in those circumstances the defendant must be accompanied by at least one member of staff from Brookfield House.
3. In our judgment the correct period for reports to be presented is every 9 months but of course that may be more frequent if there is a reason to do so.
4. We also make a restraining order in the following terms, and again this for an indeterminate period:
(i) The defendant is prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, his father, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable;
(ii) The defendant is prohibited from entering the [named] road in the Parish of St Peter;
(iii) The defendant is prohibited from attending at the home address of his father or any other address where he knows his father, to be residing, or loitering within 100 metres thereof;
(iv) The defendant is prohibited from approaching or contacting, directly or indirectly, his brother, his brother's wife, or their children, other than any contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable;
(v) The defendant is prohibited from entering the [named] road in the Parish of St Peter;
(vi) The defendant is prohibited from attending at the premises known as his brother's home address, or any other address where he knows his brother to be residing, or loitering within 100 metres thereof;
(vii) The defendant is prohibited from attending the school of his brother's children, or loitering within 100 metres thereof; and
(viii) And should the defendant see or come into contact with any of the persons mentioned in this order in any public or private place, he must take immediate action to avoid any breach of this order.
5. In accordance with the request of the Crown we dismiss Count 1, that of murder.
