Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC034

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th February 2007

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo, Bullen, Allo, King, Le Cornu and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Joao Carlos Vieira Carvalho

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

2 counts of:

Indecent assault.  (Counts 1 and 2).

Age: 32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1: Digitally penetrated a woman whilst she was asleep drunk after giving her a lift home.

Count 2: Went back to woman's flat against protest.  Forced his way in, prevented her from making calls.  Digitally penetrated her.  Disturbed by neighbour hearing cries for help.  Left through open window.

Did not accept Prosecution facts therefore Newton hearing was held putting witnesses through ordeal of giving evidence.

Details of Mitigation:

Previous good character, references, plea of guilty.

Previous Convictions:

Treated as a man of good character, no previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

Total: 5 years' imprisonment. 

Serious unrelated incidents. 

Significant effect on victims.

Little credit for reviews for plea of guilty because of cross examination of victims at Newton hearing.

Sentence would have been consecutive if not for the totality principle.

Order for deportation made.

Preliminary hearing now authority for Newtons before Inferior Number going to Superior Number for sentencing but best practice is to go to a Superior Number is clear sentence above 4 years'.

N. Santos-Costa, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Carvalho.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant has pleaded guilty to two unrelated incidents of indecent assault, the first in October 2005 and the second in February 2006.  Both offences involved serious elements of indecency, involving digital penetration of the victims.  The effect upon both women was significant.  In one case there was a temporary relapse into drug abuse and intense feelings of violation.  In the other case the woman's self confidence was affected and she no longer felt able to go out alone.

2.        In mitigation Carvalho has pleaded guilty to the Indictment but little credit can be given for that guilty plea because the grave circumstances of the indecent assaults were denied, resulting in a Newton Hearing at which both women were required to give evidence and to be cross examined.  Carvalho is to be treated as a first offender.  He has been in employment and has produced references testifying to his good work.

3.        We have to punish the defendant for two very serious and unrelated indecent assaults.  But for the totality principle, consecutive sentences could very well have been justified.

4.        We have taken into account all the mitigating factors but we think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are right and you are therefore sentenced on Count 1 to 4 years' imprisonment; on Count 2 to 5 years' imprisonment, these sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

5.        As to the question of deportation we have considered carefully the competing considerations.  On the one hand, you have lived here since the age of 19 and have established a business and established yourself in the Island; on the other hand, you appear not to understand why it is that your behaviour in relation to these women was so wrong.  The assessment is that you are at medium risk of re-offending and of committing offences of this kind again.  On balance we have reached the conclusion that your continued presence in the Island is not in the public interest.  There are no human rights considerations involved, and we will therefore recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that when you have served your sentence you should be deported from the Island.

No Authorities