AG v Bannon

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Deputy Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 24 October 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] JRC 190
• Date: 24 October 2003

[2003] JRC 190

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Allo.

The Attorney General

and

Kevin Gary Bannon

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Defendant.

Authorities

Mallet v Attorney General [2000] JLR 256.

Attorney General v Jones [2003] JRC 015.

Attorney General v Murphy (3rd October 1994) Jersey Unreported; [1994/199].

Attorney General's Reference No. 60 of 1996 (Hartnett) (1997) 2 Cr. App. R. (S).

Attorney-General's Reference No. 7 of 1994 (Chadwick) (7th July, 1994) Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England (No. 94/1736/R1).

1 count of: Grave and Criminal Assault.

Age: 35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant and the victim were drinking in the Beer House and watching football. Bannon took exception to the victim and others cheering when his team lost. He threatened the victim saying “I'm going to do you in”. The victim left and Bannon followed him into Don Street where he started what witnesses described as a “stand up brawl”. During the course of the fight Bannon, thinking that the victim was about to bite his nose, bit the victim's lip and chin, removing a piece of the victim's lip approximately 1 cm. long which he subsequently spat out. The victim was treated in hospital and the wound stitched. Although the scars had healed well by the date of sentencing the victim was left with permanent disfigurement, his mouth being visibly tighter on one side. A numbness on the left side of his lower lip was likely to be permanent.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea in circumstances where a plea of not guilty might have been viable on the basis of self-defence. No previous convictions for offences of violence. Remorse.

Previous Convictions:

One, for possession of cannabis with intent to supply for which he had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

2 years' imprisonment

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Deputy Bailiff

THE

1 During the course of a scuffle, which the defendant started, he bit the victim's lip and chin so hard that part of the lip came off and he had to spit it out. The victim required an operation because 1 cm. of his lip was missing. The scarring has healed, but because there was a shortage in the length of the lower lip the victim will never be able to open his mouth to its full extent. There is also numbness to the left side of his lower lip which may well be permanent.

2 The Court has said previously that use of teeth in such a manner is tantamount to using them as a weapon. As against that Mr. Gollop has put forward a powerful case in mitigation. He has begun by referring to the offence itself and has emphasised that although it was the defendant who asked the victim outside and started the aggression, it was the victim who made a move which convinced two witnesses watching that he might be about to bite the defendant's nose. It was following that, that the defendant then bit the victim's lip.

3 He therefore emphasises that the guilty plea was of particular value in this case, because it might have been possible...