The Attorney General v Colin McDougall

CourtRoyal Court
JudgeSir William Bailhache,Bailiff,Jurats Pitman,Christensen
Judgment Date23 June 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] JRC 98A
Date23 June 2017

Royal Court



Sir William Bailhache., Bailiff, and Jurats Pitman and Christensen.

The Attorney General
Colin McDougall

C. R. Baglin, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. E. Dale for the Defendant.


AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 .

AG v Barwise [2009] JRC 182 .

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111 .

Inferior Number Sentencing — obstructing a police officer — grave and criminal assault.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:

Obstructing a police officer (Count 1).

1 count of:

Grave and Criminal assault (Count 2).

Age: 31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:


On 28 th October, 2016, the defendant had attended at the property of his ex-partner, the victim, where the pair became involved in a domestic dispute. He was asked to leave the property but refused to do so and the police were called.

He was given a lawful order to leave the area and not return to prevent any further breach of the peace. However, at approximately 1am he returned to the address and caused a further disturbance. Officers later attended and he was found on top of a flat roof at the property and was arrested by officers. He was found to be intoxicated.

Grave and Criminal Assault – 30 th December, 2016.

On 30 th December, 2016, the day of the assault, both parties had exchanged text messages and telephone calls and agreement was reached for the defendant to attend at the victim's home to have dinner. The text messages can be seen behind Divider 8.

The defendant arrived at the property at approximately 6pm. Unknown to him, the victim had planned to go and meet her daughter and grandchild and promptly left soon after he arrived at about 6:30pm. The defendant remained at the property to look after the children.

As matters turned out the victim did not visit her grandchild as her daughter asked her to come the next day instead. The victim therefore arranged to meet with her friend, John Lusk, at a pub, where she consumed three glasses of wine before returning to her home sometime between 8:30pm and 9pm.

The defendant was annoyed with the victim for going out and drinking with Mr Lusk when he believed he had been invited round to dinner. The defendant suspects that the victim is in a relationship with Mr Lusk though she maintains they are just good friends and this has been the source of some acrimony between the pair. As a result an argument began between the two.

The argument continued for some time and escalated to the point where the defendant decided to leave the property. Sometime between approximately 9:30pm and 10:30pm, as the defendant walked from the kitchen into the hallway the victim grabbed the defendant and he turned and struck her in the face with a powerful single blow.

The assault resulted in a significant injury to the victim's top lip, being a full thickness tear in the middle of the top lip, such that her teeth and gums could be clearly seen through the split. As a result she was treated in the Accident and Emergency department of the General Hospital with 18 stitches and glue.

As a result of an anonymous telephone call to the emergency number, police officers attended at the property approximately 10:30pm and were let into by the victim's 13 year old son.

Police constable Ben Dupre activated his body worn camera and walked through the hallway and into the kitchen/lounge using his flashlight where he located the defendant. The room lights were switched off and the officer described the scene as being in darkness as was shown clearly on his body worn camera.

Officer Dupre noted in his witness statement that the defendant smelt of intoxicants, his speech was slurred and he formed the opinion he was very drunk. The police body worn camera footage shows confirms this conclusion.

The defendant was argumentative, continually raised his voice and used foul language in front of the children and the officer while being questioned. He denied that any incident had taken place.

Meanwhile Police Constable Vibert had seen the victim go into the downstairs toilet. After several minutes she emerged and the injury to her lip could be clearly seen by the officer. When asked what had happened by PC Vibert, his statement records that she replied; “Colin, he just started battering me.” This is also captured on his body worn camera footage.

The Officers spoke with each other and the defendant was arrested on suspicion of grave and criminal assault and assistance requested to transport him to the police station and an ambulance was called for the victim.

The defendant resisted officers handcuffing him in the house and had to be restrained before being placed in the van for transportation.

The defendant was seen by the Forensic Medical Examiner, Dr Richard Bowley,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • The Attorney General v Archibald Ferguson McLean
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 18 May 2018
    ...Court Sentencing Guidelines. Crime (Disorderly Conduct And Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008. AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 . AG v McDougall [2017] JRC 098A . Extract from Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, 3 rd Edition. Inferior Number Sentencing — common assault — brea......

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