Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR Note 21
PIRITO v. LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN
COURT OF APPEAL (Bailhache, Bailiff of Jersey, Vaughan and Steel, JJ.A.): April 2nd, 2008
Criminal Law—offensive weapons—possession in public place—sentence
The appellant was originally charged in the Court of Alderney with common law assault on A and being in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2006, s.4(1). The case was transferred to the Royal Court of Guernsey as the Alderney Court held that it had insufficient sentencing powers to deal with the offences.
There had been bad blood for some time between the appellant and A, who was the partner of the appellant’s daughter. On the day of the offences, the appellant threatened A in the street but was calmed down by his daughter and drove away. Later, when A was on a ladder cleaning windows in the High Street, the appellant drove his car on to the pavement and knocked the ladder down. A was unhurt but the appellant then threatened to kill him and chased him with a 10” pointed knife. A struggle ensued in which A was able to hold the appellant’s wrist to prevent injury but the appellant broke free and continued to chase him. When the appellant was arrested, he at first denied the attack but admitted that the knife (which he had thrown away) was his. When charged, he pleaded guilty to both offences.
The Royal Court expressed the view that the public interest almost always required a custodial sentence for knife crime. It sentenced the appellant to 6 months’ imprisonment for the assault (taking a starting point of 9 months and reducing the sentence by 3 months for the guilty plea and other mitigation) and 6 months consecutively for the offensive weapon offence (with no reduction for the guilty plea or other mitigation). Allowance was made for the 2½ months spent on remand in custody, making an overall sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant was ordered to undergo supervision for 3 months on release.
Held: (1) The court wholly endorsed the sentencing comments of the Royal Court. A sentence of immediate imprisonment was normally appropriate when a knife or similarly bladed weapon was involved, especially when it was exposed or used in an aggressive manner.
(2) Although two offences arising out of the same incident would usually carry concurrent sentences, there were exceptional cases in which consecutive sentences were nevertheless justified (R. v. Skinner (1986), 8 Cr. App. R. (S.) 166, followed). It was appropriate in this case, given the added factor of the flourishing of a dangerous knife in public. It was important for the courts of Guernsey and Alderney to show clearly that they were determined to punish and discourage the use of knives in this way. If anything, the sentence for the use of the knife in this case could be said to have been too lenient.
(3) The totality of the sentences being passed had to be considered (as the Royal Court appeared to have done here) when they were made consecutive—but the main objective was to ensure that justice was done and it did not make a real difference whether this was achieved by passing shorter sentences to run consecutively or longer sentences to run concurrently (R. v. Lawrence (1989), 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 580, followed). The overall sentence passed could not be said to be manifestly excessive for these two serious offences.
(4) It was well established that a plea of guilty would normally lead to a substantial reduction in the sentence (R. v. Scarley, [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 24, applied). It had nevertheless always been accepted that an exception to that rule might occur when an accused was caught red-handed, or where he had otherwise no real alternative but to plead guilty. The exception applied here—the appellant had the knife in his hand when he got out of the car, he flourished it and threatened A with it, then threw it away after the chase. He was arrested almost at once and admitted that the knife was his. The Royal Court was therefore correct in not allowing any reduction for the plea of guilty on this charge.
(5) No further mitigation had seriously been put forward and the sentence would therefore be upheld.
2009
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR Note 21