Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Grave and criminal assault - reasons for judgment

[2025] JRC 117

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 May 2025

Before     :

Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Averty and Le Heuzé

The Attorney General

-v-

Arkadiusz Michal Pawlowicz

Ms L. E. Taylor, Crown Advocate.

Advocate F. J. Littler for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On 11 October 2024, the Court sentenced Arkadiusz Michal Pawlowicz (-�the Defendant-�) to a period of 12 months imprisonment in respect of a single count of grave and criminal assault on his former partner, (-�the Complainant-�).  These, in brief, are our reasons.

2.        The facts are quite straightforward.  On 7 August 2024, the Defendant and his Partner had spent the afternoon at the funfair until a point arrived when the Defendant said he wanted to go home.  They had been drinking alcohol together prior to going to the fair.

3.        They returned home and then began to argue about various domestic matters whilst continuing to drink alcohol.  The Defendant drank wine and the Complainant drank whisky.  The Complainant then made a remark to the effect of -�I wish your Mum could be here to see you and how much of a bastard you are to me-�.  In response to this, the Defendant approached the Complainant and held a knife to his throat.  He suggested that the Complainant had said something bad about his Mother which the Complainant denied and the Defendant then said, whilst holding the knife to the Complainant's throat, -�I am going to fucking kill you-�.  The Complainant was in fear of his life.  The weapon was a bread knife with a blade that was approximately eight inches long.

4.        The Defendant moved away from the Complainant and the Complainant then ran outside and called the police.  He was in a state of fear until the police arrived.

5.        The Crown took us through the principles in Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111 and we agree with its characterisation of the assault against the various headings in that case.  We also respectfully agree, however, with the Court of Appeal in Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216 which points out that the Harrison factors, whilst useful, -�are not tailored to meet the context of domestic abuse-�.

6.        In addition, the Crown puts before us the case of AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104 with regard to knife crime when the Court said:

-�First of all the message is that knife crime will be dealt with severely even though no injury is caused, and secondly, domestic violence is similarly a crime which will be treated severely. A person's home, however big or small it is, is their refuge and if the person with whom the home is shared uses violence the victim suffers a double violation; a violation by a person they have trusted and a violation in their own home. People who commit these offences can expect the Court to focus on the victims and not on their hardships and on their difficulties.-�

7.        With regard to knife crime specifically, the Court on a number of occasions in the past has pointed out that where a knife is used it is often simply a matter of chance that no serious injury is caused.

8.        Accordingly, the Court views the domestic nature of the assault, the intoxicated state of the Defendant, the use of a knife, and an attack in the Complainant's own home as all aggravating features.  We also note the effect on the Complainant because, although he did not sustain any physical injuries, he describes in his Victim Personal Statement that he is still affected by the assault each day, had been unable to work for a week after it and only returned on a part-time basis, which he attributed to the stress and upset of the incident.

9.        It is important to note that the Defendant is a man of previous good character and he was entirely co-operative with the investigation from the outset.  However, he is assessed at being at a medium risk of general re-conviction and he has expressed his remorse for the incident which we accept as genuine.

10.     The Crown in its conclusions moved for a custodial penalty of 15 months imprisonment.  In addition, the Crown moved for a domestic abuse protection order pursuant to Article 5 of the Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022 (-�the Law-�).

11.     Article 5 provides:

-�5       Issuing domestic abuse protection order

(1) This Article applies to a person (-�A-�) aged 18 or over who has been convicted of a relevant offence against another person (-�B-�), regardless of whether the offence or conviction occurred before or after the commencement of this Law.

(2) A court may, on the application of the Attorney General, issue a domestic abuse protection order against A if the court is satisfied that -

(a) on the balance of probabilities, there is a risk of further domestic abuse by A towards B; and

(b) it is necessary to issue the order to protect B.

(3) Before issuing a domestic abuse protection order, the court must -

(a) consider any statements made by A or B on the matter;

(b) consider the welfare of any person under the age of 18 whose interests the court considers relevant to the giving of the order (whether or not that person and A are personally connected); and

(c) if the order will limit or prevent A from entering the premises where B lives, take reasonable steps to discover and consider the opinion of any other person who lives at the premises and is personally connected to A or B.-�

12.     Article 1 of the Law defines -�relevant offence-� as -

-�(a) an offence under Article 3; or

(b) any other offence or combination of offences under Jersey law, whether statutory or customary, that -

(i) involves the offender behaving abusively towards a person aged 16 or over to whom the offender is personally connected, and

(ii) consists of more than one act or failure to act.-�

13.     Article 2 of the Law defines -�personally connected-� as -

-�(1) Two people are personally connected if -

(a) they are, or have been, married, in a civil partnership or in an intimate personal relationship.-�

14.     The defence submitted that the matter could be more appropriately dealt with by way of a non-custodial disposal and argued that a domestic abuse prevention order was unnecessary as the Defendant accepted that the relationship with the Complainant was over and he had no intention of approaching the Complainant.  There was -�accordingly no risk of further domestic abuse-�.

15.     We pause to observe that in most circumstances the Court would not proceed on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion of a Defendant through counsel of an intention which might be entirely genuine at present but may, once the court proceedings have been concluded, not be something that a Complainant would be able to rely on.  The following contained within the Pre-Sentencing Report (the -�PSR-�) at paragraph 15 would support the Court's position:

-�A discussion with the independent domestic violence advisor (IDVA) for [redacted] has indicated that relationship between the parties has reached its natural conclusion, although Mr Pawlowicz refutes this.-�

16.     There seem to us, in the circumstances, to be at least two abusive elements in the facts of this offending.  The Defendant held a knife to the Complainant's throat and separately threatened to kill him.  This seems to accord with the example contained in the AG v Linstead [2024] JRC 130 and in our view it is appropriate that we make a domestic abuse prevention order.

17.     Because of the nature of this offending we did not feel that this is something that could be properly dealt with by a non-custodial disposal.  The attack was serious although mercifully there were no injuries sustained by the Complainant and it had the aggravating features to which we have made reference above.

18.     We did, however, think that insufficient regard had been paid to the Defendant's good character and expressions of remorse and indeed other matters referred to in the PSR.  In those circumstances, we imposed the sentence of imprisonment of 12 months mentioned in paragraph 1 above and also made a domestic abuse prevention order for a period of 5 years coupled with notification requirements for the same period.

19.     The matter of deportation was raised before us and whilst the first limb of the standard test has been met we did not think that the second limb had been met in all the circumstances and no recommendation for deportation was made.

Authorities

Harrison v Attorney General [2004] JLR 111.

Coelho v AG [2020] JRC 216.

AG v Horn [2010] JRC 104.

Domestic Abuse (Jersey) Law 2022.

AG v Linstead [2024] JRC 130.