Bar ban for group after “nasty episode of street violence”

Friday 18 June 2021

Four men in their early 20s involved in a "nasty episode of street violence" that knocked one man out, leaving him with a split lip and loose teeth, have avoided jail - and instead been given community service and a nine-month ban from pubs, clubs and bars.

Reece Clark (21), Kai Nicholas Donkin (21), Jake Leighton Laurendeau (22) and Alexander David Le Put (21) appeared in the Royal Court yesterday to be sentenced for two attacks on New Street in the early hours of Saturday 12 October 2019.

Clark, Laurendean and Le Put together faced one count of grave and criminal assault on one man, Mr X, with Clark and Donkin facing a charge of common assault on another, Mr Y.

Pictured: The incident occurred Laurendeau and Mr X had “exchanged words” in Mimosa.

Summing up the case for the prosecution, Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit said that on the night of the incident, Laurendeau and Mr X had “exchanged words” in Mimosa before being ejected from the nightclub.

Approximately an hour later, Mr X, who was heavily intoxicated, was also ejected from the club. Mr Y and another left with him and they walked together into the town centre and along New Street. Clark saw them near Coffee Republic and called the other three. CCTV footage showed Clark running along New Street with the others behind. 

“It is clear that they had the intention of catching up with [Mr X] and confronting him following the altercation in the Mimosa Nightclub,” the Crown Advocate said. 

As the four were acting aggressively, verbally abusive, and encouraged them to fight, Mr Y attempted to intervene and calm the situation down. 

He stood between Mr X and the defendants and Le Put pushed him. Mr Y then pushed Le Put back and the situation “quickly escalated”.

Laurendeau, Le Put and Clark “moved in” on Mr X with Le Put swinging a couple of punches towards him, one of which hit him in the face. Mr X stumbled backwards and punched out in self-defence, hitting Le Put in the face. The assault continued with Laurendeau punching Mr X to the head, after which he fell to the ground unconscious. 

Pictured: The incident took place in New Street.

Meanwhile, Mr Y approached the group with an arm raised and Clark pushed him away. Donkin then assaulted Mr Y, punching him several times to the head. The Court heard Mr Y did not fight back, and put his arms up to defend himself, before grabbing hold of Donkin’s leg when he attempted to kick him. 

The defendants then ran away, and the third man put Mr X into the recovery position before calling the police. Mr X was taken to the Emergency Department, he had several bruises on his face and upper body as well as a split lip and two loose front teeth. A Forensic Medical Examiner concluded the injuries were consistent with “multiple incidents of blunt-force trauma”.

The Court heard he was still receiving treatment for his injuries, which had caused damage to his gum and teeth, but that they were not anticipated to be permanent – which Crown Advocate Maletroit said was “fortunate for all concerned”.

The Crown Advocate described the incident as a “nasty episode of street violence” noting that the verbal altercation in Mimosa was no justification for the violence.

He said that, given his “heavily intoxicated state” – he couldn’t walk unaided – Mr X didn’t pose any “real threat” to the four defendants.

He noted that all four had accepted participating in the “joint enterprise” and the injuries caused, adding that while Clark said he hadn’t punched anyone, he hadn’t been a “mere bystander” having seen the victims in town and contacted the others before pursuing them.

He said community service was appropriate and recommended sentences ranging from 180 hours for Donkin to 210 for Clark, Laurendeau and Le Put, as well as a two-year ban from licensed premises.

Pictured: Advocate James Bell was defending Le Put.

Advocate Darry Robinson, who was defending Clark, said his client simply thought the four would continue their “argument” with Mr X.

He added that while Clark had confronted the victim “aggressively” he hadn’t been “verbally abusive” at any point. While Clark admitted being involved simply by his presence and calling the others, actions which he described as “stupid” and “unjustifiable”, he hadn’t hurt anybody his lawyer said and therefore shouldn’t pay as much compensation as the other three.

Advocate Sarah Dale, who was defending Laurendeau, told Court the exclusion order would be “unnecessary and disproportionate”, especially given the 20 months that had passed since the incident, a time during which her client had “matured significantly” and reduced his alcohol consumption.

“In the life of young men willing to make progress with their life, this is a significant amount of time to have that hanging over their heads,” she told the Court.

Defending Le Put, Advocate James Bell, noted his client’s involvement had been short and not likely to have caused serious injury. He said that soon after, Le Put realised his involvement was wrong and walked away.

He suggested the sentence sought – equivalent to 15 months in prison – was too high and reminded the Court of Le Put’s young age as well as of his “excellent employment record”.

He also urged the Court not to impose an exclusion order.

Pictured: The Crown sought a two-year exclusion order, which was reduced to nine months. 

Advocate George Pearce, defending Donkin, highlighted the “considerable delay” in the case. 

He said his client accepted his actions had been stupid and had written to apologise both to the court and the victim.

He suggested the “low level assault” could have been dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court had others not been involved.

The case was heard by the Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, and Jurats Robert Christensen and Kim Averty who concluded the sentence sought by the Crown was too high. 

They therefore sentence Clark to 140 hours of community service, while Laurendeau and Le Put received 160. Donkin, who had a previous conviction for a similar offence, received 90 hours as well as a 12-month probation order. The Bailiff urged the service to help him address his “casual acquaintance” with violence as he had previously declared that fighting was a “legitimate outcome” for a night out. 

All four were also banned from licensed premises for nine months with Clark, Laurendeau and Le Put asked to split a £6,285 compensation order to Mr X.