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 Howard and De Jesus [2023] JRC 094 (13 June 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2023/2023_094.html Cite as: [2023] JRC 94, [2023] JRC 094 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - attempted murder - offensive weapon
|
Before : |
Sir John Henry Boulton Saunders, Commissioner, and Jurats Ronge, Christensen MBE, Dulake, Hughes, Le Cornu, Le Heuzé and Berry |
The Attorney General
-v-
Jayden James Howard
Alex Diogo Franca De Jesus
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas and conviction at Assize trial to the following charges:
Jayden James Howard
|
1 count of: |
Attempted murder (Count 1) |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of an offensive weapon contrary to Article 43(1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 2). |
Age: 18 (17 at the time of the offending)
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 9 January 2022 the Defendants carried out a brutal knife attack on an 18-year-old victim at a bike shelter on the Le Geyt Estate. DE JESUS agreed to meet with the victim to whom he owed a significant drugs debt and which he had been placed under considerable pressure by the victim to pay. The offending was premeditated as two kitchen knives were taken to the scene in anticipation of a confrontation and/or violence. Almost immediately after the victim arrived at the scene he was punched, kicked, and stabbed a total of twenty three times. Two knives were used in the attack and both were broken during the assault. The blade of one knife was found on the tarmac at the scene. The blade of the other knife was lodged in the victim's spine. The handles of the knives were never recovered.
Following the attack, the Defendants carried the victim over a wall and left him lying in some bushes before fleeing the scene. The victim managed to use his mobile phone to call the emergency services to locate him.
The victim's injuries included both lungs being punctured, a laceration to the liver, and a significant spinal injury. The victim lost a significant amount of blood. The injuries were life-threatening and life-changing and but for the prompt response of the emergency services and doctors, the victim would have died. He required surgery and was kept in hospital for approximately two months.
The injury to the spine resulted in permanent nerve damage. At the time of sentencing the victim was able to walk unaided but required an ankle-foot orthosis to keep his right foot in position and was suffering from weakness and reduced sensation in his right leg. The victim was unwilling to support the prosecution and there was therefore no assessment of any psychological harm suffered.
HOWARD initially entered a not guilty plea to attempted murder and a guilty plea to possession of an offensive weapon and the alternative charge of grave and criminal assault, which was not accepted by the Crown. HOWARD subsequently entered a guilty plea to attempted murder on the basis that he stabbed the victim three or four times and that whilst he asserted the remaining stab wounds were inflicted by another, he accepted he participated in a joint enterprise. HOWARD's phone was found to contain recordings of him performing drill raps mocking the victim and boasting about his involvement in the stabbing, which had been shared on social media.
DE JESUS entered a guilty plea to possession of an offensive weapon and the alternative charge of grave and criminal assault, on a basis, which was not accepted by the Crown. DE JESUS was convicted of attempted murder following an 8-day assize trial.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas, youth, low risk of reconviction.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 20 years' imprisonment. 11 years' youth detention. |
|
Count 2: |
12 months' youth detention, concurrent. |
Total: 11 years' youth detention.
Forfeiture and destruction of knife blades and HOWARD's mobile phone sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
9 years' youth detention. |
|
Count 2: |
2 years' youth detention, concurrent. |
Total: 9 years' youth detention.
Forfeiture and destruction of knife blades and HOWARD's mobile phone ordered.
Alex Diogo Franca De Jesus
|
1 count of: |
Attempted murder (Count 1) |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of an offensive weapon contrary to Article 43(1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 3). |
Age: 19 (18 at the time of the offending).
Plea: Not guilty to Count 1. Guilty to Count 3.
Details of Offence:
See HOWARD above.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth, low risk of reconviction, remorse and positive character references. Whilst DE JESUS did not have previous convictions, the Court noted his involvement in the use of cannabis in the lead-up to the offending.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 20 years' imprisonment. 14 years' youth detention. |
|
Count 3: |
12 months' youth detention, concurrent. |
Total: 14 years' youth detention.
Forfeiture and destruction of knife blades sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
12 years' youth detention. |
|
Count 3: |
2 years' youth detention, concurrent. |
Total: 12 years' youth detention.
Forfeiture and destruction of knife blades ordered.
M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate D. S. Steenson for Defendant Howard.
Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for Defendant De Jesus.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. The Court wants there to be absolutely no doubt that the offence of attempted murder was extremely serious. It has caused life changing injuries to the victim. He only survived because of the immediate assistance of two armed police officers who attended the scene of the attack following a 999 call and then the assistance of paramedics and doctors both in Jersey and in England. The exact extent of the life changing injuries cannot be fully ascertained, and one can only hope the victim recovers to a significant extent.
2. If this offence of attempted murder had been committed by adults, the Court would be starting from a sentence of between 18 and 20 years. The only reason that it will be shorter in this case is because of the ages of the Defendants. The courts will always have in mind the desirability of rehabilitating young people. They do not always foresee the consequences of their actions as well as older people with more life experience would. This case should also be a lesson to every one of the dangers of taking cannabis, as it can result in the sort of difficulties that Mr De Jesus got into in this case, which led to such tragic results. They are not just tragic results for the victim and his family, they are tragic results for the families of the Defendants whose lives have been decimated by what these two young men have done.
3. There is an agreed background to the offence which includes details of criminal behaviour by the victim. The Court has not heard his side of what happened. No court wishes to criticise anyone without giving him the opportunity of answering the allegations. We are satisfied that the victim has been given every opportunity to cooperate with the police investigation into how he suffered his injuries and to give evidence to the jury in the trial which has taken place. He has refused to cooperate with the investigatory and judicial processes and therefore we have to make our judgments on the basis of the evidence that we do have.
4. We make it clear that we reach our sentences on the evidence which is admissible in the case of each Defendant. Because of the absence of the victim, almost all the evidence of what happened came from one or other of the Defendants and Mr Howard, having pleaded guilty, was not present at the trial and the Court cannot take into account what is said by one Defendant against the other unless there has been an opportunity to challenge it. So these two Defendants will be sentenced on different bases. That is a requirement of our law.
5. So what is the common background. Alex De Jesus was 18 at the time of this attack. He was a regular consumer of cannabis and he obtained his cannabis from the victim who was a supplier of cannabis. There came a time when De Jesus' consumption of cannabis outstripped his ability to pay to such an extent that he built up a significant debt which he was not going to be able to pay off.
6. A meeting took place between De Jesus and the victim on the evening of Sunday 9 January at a bicycle shelter on the Le Geyt Estate. The victim arrived alone and unarmed. De Jesus had with him three friends including Jayden Howard. Jayden Howard had gone along to assist De Jesus in the event of trouble. Two knives were taken to the scene and, depending on whose account is correct, and we have no way of deciding, either they were both carried by De Jesus or one each was carried by De Jesus and Jayden Howard.
7. While what happened at the scene, looked at objectively has the appearance of an ambush by De Jesus and his three friends, that is not the basis on which these two Defendants can be sentenced. The jury who convicted De Jesus of attempted murder acquitted the other two of any offence of violence, which effectively means that they were not satisfied that they were party to any agreement to attack the victim. The result of that is that the Court cannot proceed to sentence on the basis that this was an ambush. What has been proved as a basis for sentence is that both De Jesu and Howard went to the scene prepared for violence, and knives were being carried which they knew may be used and, if they were used, it would be a matter of chance how serious the injuries would be.. It is agreed and accepted after the verdict of the jury and the plea of Howard that when those knives were used both of the Defendants intended that the victim would die and that is a terrible intention to have had.
8. It is not a permissible argument to say that knives were taken by these Defendants to defend themselves from a possible attack. In this case, if either or both of them had feared violence in which knives might be used, the proper course, as they must accept, was not to attend at all and meet up, but was to report the matter to the police or at least to report the matter to their parents so that they could get good advice and help.
9. As I said there is a factual dispute between the two Defendants as to who carried the knives and who carried out the stabbing and for the reasons I have given that could only be resolved if there was sufficient objective evidence coming from either defendant which would enable us to resolve that dispute and there is not.
10. The Court has considered whether those disputes materially effect the sentence or whether it is possible to do justice on the evidence that we have. Both the Prosecution and the Defence accept that it is possible to do justice on the evidence that we have and we have agreed with that joint submission.
11. The victim was stabbed no fewer than twenty three times and he was stabbed when he was face down on the floor. He had been knocked to the floor, and he was stabbed in the back twenty three times when he was helpless. The attack was sufficiently fierce to break both of the knives which were used and the blade of one of them broke in the victim's back having penetrated the spinal column.
12. We will deal with Howard on the basis of what he admits namely that he struck three or four blows with a knife when the victim was lying face down in no position to escape. It was one of those final blows that left the knife broken in the spinal cord. So this was no ordinary attack, it was a ferocious attack and as Advocate Steenson said, Mr Howard must have seen the "red mist" which had descended on him to make him act in the way that he did. What caused that "red mist" is impossible for us to say and we really have had no explanation for it.
13. After the stabbing the two Defendants placed the body of the victim over a low wall. The victim believed at that time that he was dying, and he would have done, but for the speedy help that was given. The reason for putting him over a low wall was so that he could not be seen from nearby houses. Had he been seen no doubt the occupants would have rung 999 and got help there as soon as they could or come out themselves to render help to the victim. Moving the victim over the wall made it much less likely that he would be discovered by the rescue services. In fact the victim was able to ring the emergency services on his mobile phone even though he believed, as he told them on 999, that he was dying at the time. De Jesus says that he gave the victim his mobile phone for that purpose and it is not possible to discount that as a possibility. Fortunately after some difficulty two armed firearms police officers who had training to deal with traumatic injuries of this kind managed to find the victim and gave him assistance which they continued to do until the ambulance service arrived and we heard the ambulance service on the radio saying how difficult it was for them to find the injured person to give him help.
14. The victim was given help by the firearms officers and also from the ambulance service when they arrived. After the victim was out of danger, having been treated at hospital in Jersey and in England, he had to start the long and painstaking road to recovery and he is still on that road now.
15. This sort of violence causing fatal or non fatal injuries caused with knives is fortunately quite rare in Jersey, although I am told it is on the increase. It cannot be allowed to develop. It will affect the nature of the whole island if it does. Gang culture around the supply and consumption of drugs is also quite rare and that cannot be allowed to develop. The fact that Mr Howard was singing rap music and lyrics associated with the stabbing is a worrying sign that the gang culture seen elsewhere is being mimicked here in Jersey. It has to stop.
16. In our judgment when considering the appropriate sentences the starting point for an offence of this gravity will inevitably be very long. There are a number of aggravating features; the taking of knives to the scene, the awful injuries that were caused, hiding of the injured person which had the effect of making his rescue more difficult, the attempt to cover up what had happened by disposing of evidence. A number of aggravating features which were identified by the Prosecution.
17. There are mitigating features. Both Defendants are of good character and the number of and the contents of the references that they have obtained demonstrate that they are normally of positive good character rather than simply having no convictions. In the case of De Jesus there is a limit to the credit he can get for his good character. He has been taking cannabis for a long time, a criminal offence. He took it despite the warnings of his parents not to do so. He took it in quantities where he could not possibly afford to pay for it and he put himself at real risk of what happened here.
18. The greatest mitigation is their age, and how great a discount from the starting point that we should make has been the main consideration for the Jurats in deciding on their sentences. Mr Howard was 17 at the time and Mr De Jesus was a few months older and aged 18. The Prosecution fairly do not seek to distinguish between them a great deal because the passing of a birthday should not make a big difference to the length of sentence.
19. As I have said the judicial process rightly treats differently those who are young from those who are older. Young people are less mature, they have seen less of life, they make mistakes and they do not look at the consequences of their actions as clearly as older people. It is difficult to believe that had either of these defendants thought through the probable consequences of their actions that they would have gone ahead. However, this cannot and should not be overstated. Both Defendants are intelligent. They are well educated. One of them, De Jesus was on the way to training as a policeman. They have the benefit of caring and supportive families. They are not children. They have proved themselves to be responsible at school and they do not have the excuse that many Defendants who appear before the courts have of having had a difficult upbringing and childhood.
20. Deciding on sentence, although of course one looks at figures put forward on both sides, is not a mathematical exercise. At the end of the day the Court has to decide on a sentence which they consider to be fair to everybody. So, as the Prosecution accept, there is a significant discount for their youth. There is also some discount for good character. As I said that should not be overstated. Taking all matters into account, including the nature of the stabbing which Mr Howard must have undertaken, we have reached a figure for both of these Defendants but before credit for plea of 12 years. We have decided that there should be a significant discount given to Mr Howard for his guilty plea. It is perfectly correct, as the Prosecution say that it was entered later in the day, but notification of the intended plea was given, earlier than we initially thought. We have also been persuaded by Advocate Steenson that the resulting plea has a great deal to do with the sensible advice which he has been able to give to his client. We take the view that it takes a great deal of courage to plead guilty to attempted murder which involves facing up to your hugely disappointed family, and telling them that you admit to stabbing someone intending to kill them.
21. So having arrived at the various figures we have to take a step back and decide what is a fair sentence. Having done that the Court has decided that on the offence of attempted murder, in the case of Mr Howard there will be a sentence of 9 years' youth detention and in the case of Mr De Jesus it will be 12 years. The sentence for carrying the offensive weapon will be concurrent because the knife was taken specifically for the possibility of this attack. If they had been carrying knives as a matter of course then there would have been good reason to make the sentence consecutive. So for that offence of carrying an offensive weapon there will be concurrent sentences of 2 years' youth detention.
22. I have already made confiscation orders.
