Harrison v Attorney General

JurisdictionJersey
CourtCourt of Appeal
JudgeBirt, Deputy Bailiff and Southwell, Nutting, Smith and Vaughan, JJ.A.
Judgment Date16 March 2004
Date16 March 2004
COURT OF APPEAL
Birt, Deputy Bailiff and Southwell, Nutting, Smith and Vaughan, JJ.A.

R. da S. Tremoceiro for the appellant;

W.J. Bailhaiche, Q.C., Attorney General, and S.M. Baker, Crown Advocate, for the Crown;

T.J. Le Cocq as amicus curiae.

Cases cited:

(1) Att. Gen. v. Barnes, 2002 JLR N [13], considered.

(2) Att. Gen. v. Dias, 2003 JLR N [48], considered.

(3) Att. Gen. v. Gorvel, 1973 J.J. 2503, considered.

(4) Att. Gen. v. Hanby, Royal Ct., March 20th, 2002, unreported, considered.

(5) Att. Gen. v. Kelly, Royal Ct., November 22nd, 2000, unreported; on appeal, sub nom.Kelly v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR 108, considered.

(6) Att. Gen. v. Mallet, 2000 JLR 155; on appeal, 2000 JLR 256, considered.

(7) Att. Gen. v. Pagett, 1984 J.J. 57, considered.

(8) Att. Gen. v. Prior, Royal Ct., July 24th, 2001, unreported; on appeal, sub nom.Prior v. Att. Gen., 2002 JLR 11, considered.

(9) Att. Gen. v. Sampson, 1965 J.J. 495, considered.

(10) Att. Gen. v. Vaughan, Royal Ct., November 1974, unreported, approved.

(11) Att Gen.'s Ref. (No. 1 of 1989) (1989), 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 409; [1989] 3 All E.R. 571, considered.

(12) Att. Gen.'s Ref. (No. 132 of 2001), [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 190, referred to.

(13) Campbell (A.T.) v. Att. Gen., 1995 JLR 136, considered.

(14) Carter v. Att. Gen., C.A., September 28th, 1994, unreported, considered.

(15) Channing v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR N [46], not followed in part.

(16) Clarkin v. Att. Gen., 1991 JLR 213, considered.

(17) Evans v. Att. Gen., 1997 JLR 94, considered.

(18) Fogg v. Att. Gen., 1991 JLR 31, considered.

(19) Gill v. Att. Gen., 1999 JLR N-18, considered.

(20) Harris v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR 362, not followed in part.

(21) Hunt v. Att. Gen., [2003] JCA128, unreported, referred to.

(22) Kenward v. Att. Gen., 2000 JLR 251, followed.

(23) Le Monnier v. Att. Gen., 2000 JLR 396, considered.

(24) Le Pavoux v. Att. Gen., 2003 JLR N [31], not followed in part.

(25) Morgan v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR 225, considered.

(26) Practice Direction (Bail: Failure to Surrender) (Crim.), [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 28; [2004] 1 W.L.R. 589, referred to.

(27) R. v. Aramah (1983), 76 Cr. App. R. 190; [1983] Crim. L.R. 271, referred to.

(28) R. v. Bennett, [1975] Crim. L.R. 654, referred to.

(29) R. v. Bilinski (1988), 86 Cr. App. R. 146; [1987] Crim. L.R. 782, dicta of Lord Lane, C.J. considered.

(30) R. v. Buffery (1993), 14 Cr. App. R. (S.) 511, dicta of Lord Taylor, C.J. considered.

(31) R. v. Czyzewski (2003), 167 J.P. 409; The Times, July 25th, 2003, referred to.

(32) R. v. Daly (1981), 3 Cr. App. R. (S.) 340, dicta of Lord Lane, C.J. considered.

(33) R. v. Davis (1980), 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 168, considered.

(34) R. v. Fraser (1982), 4 Cr. App. R. (S.) 254; [1982] Crim. L.R. 841, considered.

(35) R. v. Lodde, The Times, March 8th, 2000, considered.

(36) R. v. McInerney, [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 39; [2003] 1 All E.R. 1089, referred to.

(37) R. v. March, [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 448, referred to.

(38) R. v. Millberry, [2003] 2 All E.R. 939; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 546, referred to.

(39) R. v. Scalise (1985), 7 Cr. App. R. (S.) 395, referred to.

(40) R. v. Shershewsky (1912), 28 T.L.R. 364, considered.

(41) R. v. Sidlow (1908), 72 J.P. 391; [1908] 1 Cr. App. R. 28, dicta of Lord Hewart, C.J. considered.

(42) R. v. Singh (1988), 10 Cr. App. R. (S.) 402, referred to.

(43) R. v. Stone (1988), 10 Cr. App. R. (S.) 322; [1988] Crim. L.R. 852, referred to.

(44) R. v. Vincent, [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 6; [1996] Crim. L.R. 128, referred to.

(45) R. v. Webbe, [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 22, referred to.

(46) R. v. White, [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 354, considered.

(47) R. v. Williams (Constantine), [1997] EWCA Crim. 2295, referred to.

(48) Rimmer v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR 373, considered.

(49) Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1995), 19 E.H.R.R. 553, considered.

(50) Sangster v. Att. Gen., Royal Ct., April 29th, 2002, unreported, considered.

(51) Schollhammer v. Att. Gen., 1992 JLR 165, considered.

(52) Wood v. Att. Gen., 1994 JLR N-15, considered.

Additional cases cited by counsel:

Att. Gen. v. Artiss, [2003] JRC088, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Bonhomme, Royal Ct., July 16th, 2001, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. du Feu, [2003] JRC059, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Gooding, [2003] JRC035, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Hodson, [2003] JRC053, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Jones, [2003] JRC015, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Majid, [2003] JRC101, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Nolan, 2002 JLR N [31].

Att. Gen. v. Norris, 1992 JLR N-11; further proceedings, C.A., September 28th, 1992, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Porteous, Royal Ct., June 15th, 2001, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Skinner, [2003] JRC093A, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Smith, [2003] JRC210, unreported.

Att. Gen.'s Ref. (No. 15 of 1992) (1993), 14 Cr. App. R. (S.) 324.

Att. Gen.'s Ref. (No. 12 of 1993) (1994), 15 Cr. App. R. (S.) 424.

Att. Gen.'s Ref. (No. 4 of 1998), [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 388.

Baglin v. Att. Gen., 2003 JLR N [19].

Bonnar v. Att. Gen., 2001 JLR 626.

Evans v. Att. Gen., [2003] JCA202, unreported.

Graham v. Att. Gen., 1996 JLR 270.

McDonough v. Att. Gen., 1994 JLR N-7.

Nash v. Att. Gen., Royal Ct., May 14th, 2002, unreported.

R. v. Clark (Trevor), [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. 137.

R. v. Cooksley, [2003] 3 All E.R. 40.

R. v. De Simone, [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 332.

R. v. Hooley, [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 105.

R. v. Howard, [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 419.

R. v. MacKenzie (1988), 10 Cr. App. R. (S.) 299.

R. v. Pollin, [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 356.

R. v. Sargeant (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. (S.) 74.

R. v. Thomas (2002), 146 S.J.L.B. 242.

Practice Direction considered:

Legislation construed:

Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 25(3): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at para. 28.

Criminal Proceedings (Computation of Sentences) (Jersey) Rules 1968 (R. & O. 5136), r.1(1): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at para. 135.

Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13: The relevant terms of this article are set out at para. 32.

Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (7 Edw. VII, c.23), s.4(3): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at para. 25.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, November 4th, 1950; Treaty Series 71 (1953)) (Cmnd. 8969), art. 6: The relevant terms of this article are set out at para. 22.

Practice Direction (Royal Ct.) (Testimonials, References, Letters from Defendants, etc. for Sentencing Purposes) (2004/01)

Texts cited:

Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (2003 ed.), para. 7-136, at 966.

Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, 2nd ed., paras. 577-613, at 216-227; para. 667 et seq., at 240 (2002).

Criminal Procedure—sentence—sentencing principles—starting points—preferable to use starting points for all offences as (a) makes sentencing more transparent; (b) aids consistency; and (c) ensures adequate discount made for mitigation, e.g. guilty plea—not required by European Convention and not otherwise mandatory but sentencing court's reasoning to be clear

Criminal Procedure—sentence—sentencing principles—starting points—two-stage process involving (a) selection of starting point by weighing factors aggravating (including relevant bad character) and reducing gravity; (b) deduction of mitigating factors including discount for guilty plea, personal mitigation, time awaiting trial, good character and other personal circumstances

The accused was charged in the Royal Court with committing a public nuisance and grave and criminal assault.

An altercation took place between two groups, one containing the victim and one the accused, both of which had been out drinking. The altercation came to blows and as a result of the actions of the accused, either alone or as part of the group, the victim sustained injuries which caused the permanent loss of his sight in one eye.

Whilst on bail, the accused absconded and fled to Spain. 2½ years later, he was found there and held on remand whilst the authorities in Jersey applied to extradite him. As a result of his initial opposition to the application, the accused spent 10 months in prison in Spain before being returned to Jersey.

In Jersey, he pleaded guilty to committing a public nuisance and was convicted of grave and criminal assault. He was sentenced to a total of 3½ years' imprisonment, including a sentence of 12 months for contempt of court to run concurrently with the main sentence. His appeal against conviction was dismissed.

On appeal against sentence, the accused submitted that (a) the sentencing procedure adopted by the court had been wrong as it was inappropriate to use starting points in cases of assault; (b) even if the use of starting points were appropriate, a starting point of five years was manifestly excessive; (c) the final sentence had been manifestly excessive as under r.1(1) of the Criminal Proceedings (Computation of Sentences) (Jersey) Rules 1968 the court should have taken into account the time he spent in prison in Spain; (d) even if the court were not obliged to take into account all the time he had spent in prison, it should have exercised its discretion to grant full day-for-day discount from the point at which he ceased opposing extradition; and (e) the sentence imposed for contempt was manifestly excessive, since no example of a sentence as long as 12 months for the offence could be found.

In reply, the Crown submitted that (a) the adoption of starting points in assault cases was not only appropriate but desirable; (b) the choice of a starting point of five years in this case was not manifestly excessive taking account of all the factors which formed an integral part of the commission of the offence; (c) r.1(1) of the 1968 Rules clearly did not apply to overseas courts but the court had, in any case, taken it into account; (d) the court was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
259 cases
  • Bhojwani v AG
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 10 February 2011
    ...Crown [2007–8] GLR 207 . R v. Exall (1866) 176 ER 850 . AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116 . AG v Michel [2007] JRC 120 . Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 . Att. Gen. v Sampson (9) (1965) JJ at 499 . Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (2003 ed.). Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948.......
  • Baglin v Attorney General
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 19 May 2005
    ...98(7) L.S. Gaz. 40; 145 Sol. Jo. (L.B.) 29, referred to. (7) Esteem Settlement, In re, 2001 JLR 169, applied. (8) Harrison v. Att. Gen., 2004 JLR 111, applied. (9) Hirschfield (ne Shalome) v. Abacus (C.I.) Ltd., 2000 JLR 420, referred to. (10) Mallet v. Att. Gen., 2000 JLR 256, referred to.......
  • Durkin and Howard v Attorney General
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 January 2005
    ...(3) Bruton v. Att. Gen., 2000 JLR N-58, referred to. (4) Harrison v. Att. Gen., C.A., January 14th, 2004, unreported; further proceedings, 2004 JLR 111, dicta of Nutting, J.A. considered. (5) Hunt v. Att. Gen., C.A., July 18th, 2003, unreported, referred to. (6) Le Pavoux v. Att. Gen., 2003......
  • John Tasker Lewis; Ian Michael Christmas; Russell Philip Foot; James Cameron v The Attorney General
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 April 2013
    ...2012. Wicks, Sharp and Towers v The Law Officers , 22nd March, 2012. Cooper v AG 2001/6 . Caboz v AG [2004] JLR 80 . Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 . AG v Speck [2004] JRC 100 . R v Kevin Brown (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 115 . Fraud — appeals against conviction and sentence. Appeals against convi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT