A 23-year-old woman has avoided jail "by the narrowest possible margin" after an "alcohol-fuelled" glassing attack on a man in a nightclub left him with permanent scarring from nine stitches to his face.
Sacha Olivia Butlin, who was instead handed community service and ordered to pay the man more than £3,000 in compensation, had also slapped another woman and punched another one, causing her nose to bleed, during the brawl which took place around 00:30 in March 2020 at Vittoria nightclub.
She appeared in Royal Court on Friday, facing three counts of assault and one count of grave and criminal assault.
Crown Advocate Julian Gollop told Court that Miss Butlin knew all of the victims, who were in their 20s.
As Miss A and Mr B, who were a couple, were heading to Vittoria's courtyard, Butlin kicked towards the woman before turning back, the Court was told.
Advocate Gollop said that when Miss A turned round and walked towards Butlin, she slapped her in the face. Mr B then stepped between the two women and pushed Butlin away, after which she slapped his face while shouting “in an intense and aggressive manner”, he said.
Pictured: The incident took place in Vittoria nightclub which is located at Liberty Wharf.
A few moments later, on the club’s dancefloor, Butlin approached the couple. Their friend, Miss C, tapped her on the shoulder to find out what was going on and Butlin punched her in the face causing her nose to start bleeding, the Court heard.
Advocate Gollop said Mr B attempted to intervene to separate the two women and Butlin then hit him in the face with the glass she was holding in her hand. The glass smashed on impact, causing Mr B’s vision to go “blurry”. He was taken to A&E and received nine stitches above and through his left eyebrow, which have left permanent scars.
The Crown Advocate described the incident as alcohol-fuelled, arguing Butlin had sought confrontation and acted with “unprovoked violence” causing “significant injuries” to Mr B.
He noted Butlin had expressed remorse and acknowledged her actions on the night were “unjustified, disproportionate and reckless”.
Pictured: Mr B had to be taken to A&E, and received nine stitches after the glassing.
He recommended an 18-month prison sentence and urged the Court to ban Butlin from premises serving alcohol for a year after her release.
He also requested that the Court impose a restraining order preventing Butlin from approaching or contacting any of the victims for five years.
Defending, Advocate David Steenson said Butlin was “extremely sorry and genuinely remorseful” for her involvement in the incident as well as “the horrible injuries” sustained by the man.
He suggested that two of the victims had exaggerated the impact of the incident on them.
Advocate Steenson said the assault on the man occurred because Butlin was frightened when she saw he was “fast approaching her” - something he said was not an “after the event inconvenient excuse”, but corroborated by an independent witness, who actually put the man in a "choke hold" due to his concern that an attack might happen.
The defence lawyer added that Butlin, who hadn’t appreciated she had a glass in her hand, had accepted she should not have “flailed her arms at all” and suggested it would be a fine decision for the Court to determine where self-defence ends and where assault starts.
He rejected the Crown's view that Butlin had been the aggressor throughout, noting that moments before the first incident, the victim had “brushed roughly” against Butlin.
Pictured: Butlin entered guilty pleas just days before a trial was due to take place.
Explaining why Butlin had changed her pleas to guilty just days before a trial was due to take place, Advocate Steenson told the Court his client would have entered pleas earlier in the process if he had been able to discuss his client’s basis of plea with the Law Officers’ department, as he had requested.
He said it wasn’t fair for his client to be penalised for the department’s unwillingness to engage in the discussion and urge the Court to give her credit for her “valuable pleas”, nothing the case was such that she was not “inevitably going to be convicted”.
The defence lawyer went on to say Butlin’s behaviour on the night had been “entirely out of character”, as evidenced by the character references provided to the court, noting she had had too much to drink and gotten involved in an argument “drunk people should never get involved in”.
“A sober, level-headed and responsible Miss Butlin as she normally is would have not gotten involved,” he added.
He added it was unfair of the Crown to say Butlin was not of good character, noting the only offence on her record was not relevant and had taken place when she was 17.
The case was heard by the Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, and Jurats Collette Crill and Dr Gareth Hughes.
Returning the sentence of the Court, the Deputy Bailiff told Butlin that forgetting she was holding the glass offered no mitigation since she had forgotten because of the amount she had drunk - half a bottle of vodka, which he said was another aggravating feature in the case.
He also warned Butlin the man she had hit could have lost an eye in the incident.
Pictured: The case was heard by the Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, and Jurats Collette Crill and Dr Gareth Hughes.
He noted Butlin’s “difficult start in life” and said the Court had given “anxious consideration” to her case, having retired for over an hour to make a decision on her sentence.
He said the Jurats had been divided on the decision, with one “just persuaded” that there were exceptional circumstances, including her young age, her strong work record and her good character, that would allow an alternative to a prison sentence.
The Deputy Bailiff said he had eventually agreed with this Jurat and that, as a result, Butlin had avoided prison “by the narrowest possible margin”.
He sentenced her to 240 hours of community service and ordered her to pay over £3,300 in compensation to Mr B as well as £140 to Miss C, in addition to £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.
Butlin has also been excluded from licensed premises for 12 months and banned from contacting any of the victims for five years.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.