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 Hadikin [2022] JRC 270 (05 December 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_270.html Cite as: [2022] JRC 270 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - attempted murder
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Crill, Dulake, Austin-Vautier, Le Cornu and Le Heuzé |
The Attorney General
-v-
Paul Anthony Hadikin
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize Trial to the following charge:
|
1 count of: |
Attempted murder (Count 1). |
Age: 58.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Friday 3rd December 2021, the Defendant walked into Temple Bar armed with a knife and stabbed a man with the intention of killing him.
The Defendant had had an altercation with the victim earlier in the evening and had been knocked to the floor by the victim headbutting him. In response the Defendant left the pub and walked to his nearby flat where he picked up a large knife. He returned to the pub a few minutes later, armed with the knife, and located the victim who was still inside. The Defendant entered the pub with the knife in his hand. He acted with pace, and with the element of surprise. He was inside for only a matter of seconds. He walked straight up to the victim and stabbed him once to the abdomen. No words were exchanged. The Defendant then left the pub, leaving the victim for dead, or so he believed.
The victim suffered a deep stab wound which caused severe internal and life-threatening injuries. It was luck, rather than judgment or restraint on the Defendant's part, that he survived.
After leaving the pub the Defendant messaged his daughter and son making several confessions including "Ive just killed some one", "He is dead" and "I killed him".
Four key aggravating factors were present, premeditation, the use of a weapon, intoxication and degree of harm.
Defendant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty of attempted murder by unanimous verdict following a four day assize trial.
Details of Mitigation:
Degree of provocation offered by the victim in headbutting the Defendant earlier that evening however given the time that passed between the Defendant leaving the pub, walking home, arming himself with the knife and returning to the Temple Bar and stabbing the victim the significance of the provocation as a mitigating feature becomes more remote.
Defendant has previous offences of violence and for possession of offensive weapons. Defendant does not have the benefit of a guilty plea.
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has a wide variety of offences to his name, including offences of violence, theft, public disorder, drugs and offensive weapons. He has served sentences of imprisonment in Jersey before. However, the Crown acknowledges that his convictions are mainly historic. His most recent previous conviction was in August 2011 in the Magistrate's Court in respect of two common assault charges
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 18 years' imprisonment. 17 years' imprisonment. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. On the 3rd December 2021, following an altercation with a person in a public house you went home, armed yourself with a large knife and returned to the pub locating that individual, surprising him and stabbing him once in the abdomen. You left the pub leaving your victim for dead which was the belief that you expressed in subsequent text messages. He suffered life threatening injuries and it was a matter entirely of luck that he is still alive today. You pleaded not guilty but were convicted of attempted murder by the unanimous decision of a jury following a four day trial.
2. We do not go into the full details in these brief remarks as they have been referred to thoroughly by the Crown in its submissions to us. You clearly intended to kill your victim and believed you had done so as is clear from the messages that passed between you and your daughter and son shortly after the incident.
3. Although there had been an altercation between yourself and your victim some time before there was more than sufficient cooling off period and this was simply, on any analysis, a revenge attack. You were also, again on any analysis, heavily intoxicated having consumed, so it seems, a bottle of wine before going to the pub and then a number of pints of larger whilst there.
4. The injuries suffered by your victim were profound and as we have said life threatening. He was intubated, ventilated and resuscitated before being taken to theatre for emergency surgery. The wound was approximately an inch wide at skin level and approximately six to seven inches deep. He suffered from that a small cut to the bowel and an almost complete transection of a part of the colon. He required three phases of emergency surgery after which he was placed in an induced coma and required a blood transfusion. Absent this treatment in hospital there is no doubt that he would have died due to blood loss. He remained unconscious until 27th December.
5. The case that you set before the jury at trial was that this was an accident because you bumped into the victim in the pub whilst you had a knife in your hand. Clearly the jury by their verdict did not accept that account.
6. In moving conclusions the Crown has put before us the case of AG v Barbosa [2013] JRC 165 in which the Bailiff of the day made the following general observations:-
As can be seen from this quotation attempted murder, though clearly the level of harm is not as severe as in murder, the culpability of the attacker will sometimes be higher because murder can be committed even in cases where there is not the intent to kill.
7. The sentence in Barbosa was one of 9 years but in that case the Court gave the benefit of the doubt as to psychological harm caused and the fact that there was no long term physical harm. In the current case we have seen the medical report and indeed the Victim Impact Statement which states and sets out the long term physical and psychological consequences for the victim. These are serious and of themselves make the nature of this attack all the more serious as to its consequences.
8. The Crown has also put before us the case of AG v Caboz [2003] JRC 230 which again is an example of attempted murder by stabbing a number of times, indeed in front of a very young child in that case. There were a number of aggravating features and the Court took a starting point there of 13 years' imprisonment, imposing an 11 year sentence.
9. Both of these cases that I have just mentioned were domestic in nature and we are conscious as the Crown has reminded us that they were decided some nine years ago and nineteen years ago respectively. The world has moved on and the view taken of knife crimes and injuries of this nature has become more serious. The most recent case of AG v Carmody [2022] JRC 169 in which the Defendant confronted the victim in the rear carpark of a hotel and repeatedly stabbed him with a knife which he took to the scene during a premeditated revenge attack gave rise to a sentence of 10½ years' imprisonment from a starting point of 18½ years.
10. It is quite clear that this offence was premeditated. You armed yourself with a knife and returned to the pub and the only purpose could have been to stab the victim and indeed that was the finding of the jury. The Crown characterises your attack as brutal and calculated and we do not disagree. The Crown is also right to remind us that the Court treats knife crime with the utmost seriousness. We do not need to repeat the citations from the various cases that the Crown has put before us. In essence however, the use of a knife inevitably increases the seriousness of any kind of attack as it is simply a matter of chance as to the seriousness of the injury caused. Once you use a knife you loose control over the consequences of your actions. It is clear that you were heavily intoxicated as we have said and voluntary intoxication is no mitigation, indeed it is generally accepted by the courts as being an aggravating feature.
11. We have seen the reports of the forensic medical examination and it is clear that your victim has suffered a large number of medical complications. They have been referred to fully by the Crown and we do not need to repeat them now, but your victim's treatment is still ongoing and on the most recent updated report it appears he is facing the removal of a kidney, the potential of lifelong colostomy, the likelihood of a hernia, the fact that the wound remains open and the necessity, as a result of the treatment received and other things, for abdominal wall reconstruction and he may require multiple surgical approaches. The doctor expresses the opinion
"Due to the extensive abdominal injuries and the damage to the abdominal wall, it is very unlikely the [victim] will ever be able to work in a physically demanding environment again. The damage to his abdominal muscles will affect his ability to lift and bend down with ease. Even after surgery, his abdominal muscles will be scarred, and this will limit his ability to lift and bend."
12. The victim impact report has also made troubling reading which is hardly surprising given the nature of the attack and the injuries sustained. It is clear that the crime has caused physical social and occupational impact of significance and that your victim's relationships have been detrimentally affected. The Victim Personal Statement amongst other things refers to the restriction in his ability to do things which leaves him feeling "degraded and frustrated". He describes having to relive this experience in his mind as a nightmare and we are entirely sympathetic to what he has said.
13. There was, it is fair to say, a small measure of provocation in the sense that you were headbutted by your victim earlier in the evening. There is a suggestion however that you were the cause of the altercation in the first place in that you were behaving aggressively. As the Crown has said however, it cannot be suggested that your reaction was in the heat of the moment. It was a distant act of revenge and we do not consider the provocation you received offers you substantial mitigation. You are assessed as being at moderate risk of reconviction but presenting high risk of harm if a particular individual has caused you to feel threatened in some way.
14. You do not have a good record and your existing record contains offences of violence, public disorder, drugs and offensive weapons. You have been to prison before. The Crown has acknowledged and we note and accept that your convictions are to an extent historic, your most recent one being in August 2011 for two common assault charges.
15. You do not, of course, have the benefit of a guilty plea and we accept that you were cooperative and you have expressed remorse, but that appears to be the extent of the mitigation that is available to you in this case. We agree with the Crown that a deterrent sentence for the use of a knife in this way is justified and we also therefore agree that the appropriate starting point is one of 18 years of imprisonment. This is analogous to the starting point used in the case Carmody and although, of course, it is not as such authority for any particular starting point there is a sufficient similarity between that case and this that leads us to believe that an 18 year starting point is appropriate. Whilst there was arguably more premeditation in Carmody the consequences for the victim were materially less severe.
16. As I have said, you do not have the benefit of a discount that would have been available to you on a guilty plea, nor did you until after conviction admit any wrongdoing at all. In the circumstances we do not think that we can allow more than provided for by the Crown by way of mitigation and from a starting point of 18 years you are sentenced to 17 years imprisonment.
