Woman jailed after knocking out victim’s tooth in glassing attack

Saturday 31 August 2019

A young woman, who threw a glass into the face of a female victim, knocking out a tooth and leaving her with a permanent scar, after assaulting another woman, has been jailed for 15 months.

The Royal Court heard yesterday that 24-year-old Brogan Allen had a previous conviction for grave and criminal assault on a woman she knocked unconscious, and had also been warned for an assault committed while she was at school.

Passing sentence, Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith OBE told Miss Allen that the Court regarded drunken violence of this kind as completely unacceptable and was in no doubt that a custodial sentence should be imposed.

However, the Commissioner – sitting with Jurats Pamela Pitman and Charles Blampied – reduced the term of imprisonment sought by the Crown by three months. He ordered that compensation of £250 and £3,399 should be paid to the two victims and he banned the defendant from licensed premises for 24 months.

Pictured: Allen appeared in the Royal Court to be sentenced yesterday.

Outlining the case, Crown Advocate Richard Pedley told the Court that the grave and criminal assault and the common assault were committed on the same occasion, in the early hours of the morning on 21 February this year at Tanguy's in St Helier, when Miss Allen confronted the two victims who were sitting beside her boyfriend in the club.

"The Crown's case in relation to the assault of [the first victim] is that the defendant pushed her and threw her drink over her. In the process, there was contact with the victim's forehead causing abrasions", he said, adding that the injuries were probably caused by the defendant's fingernails.

Advocate Pedley explained that when the second victim stood up, the defendant threw the glass she was holding, hitting the victim in the face.

"The victim was seen in the Accident and Emergency Department of the hospital. She was found to have lost her upper tooth and to have suffered a cut to her upper lip," Advocate Pedley said, adding that the injury had resulted in a permanent scar and a loss of feeling in her lip.

Seeking a prison sentence of 18 months, Advocate Pedley told the Court that victim impact statements showed that both women had been seriously affected by the violence. One said: "This was an unprovoked assault on me. I simply don't understand why a female who I don't know and have never met before would punch me in the face."

Pictured: One victim, who lost a tooth and suffered a cut to her upper lip, was taken to A&E.

He said that Miss Allen no longer had the benefit of youth by way of mitigation and, although she had surrendered herself to Police, he said that her lack of response to questioning indicated a lack of co-operation.

Representing Miss Allen, Advocate Adam Harrison accepted that while it was 'difficult to fault the Crown's conclusions', an alternative to imprisonment might be provided by a period of probation and community service, according to the Probation Service report.

While he had no observations on the facts outlined by the Crown, he said that the defence did not accept the assertion that Miss Allen had been uncooperative with police – she had merely exercised her right of silence based on legal advice she had received.

He said that his client had not deliberately aimed the glass and had used it as a weapon instinctively as it was already in her hand rather than seeking it for the purpose. She had shown genuine remorse, writing both to the Court and to her victims - though they had declined to accept the letters - and had accepted the need for help to control her anger.

He underlined her good work record over the previous four years and references which testified to her "conscientious, motivated, sincere and hard-working" attitude.

Imposing concurrent sentences of six months' imprisonment for the common assault and 15 months for the grave and criminal assault, Commissioner Clyde-Smith said that the Court had a clear policy regarding drunken violence in public places and would impose a custodial sentence unless the circumstances were exceptional.

But he said that the Court disagreed with the Crown's interpretation of the silence in the initial interview as a lack of cooperation with Police and took this into account in its sentence.