Out of nine assaults committed by Shawn Le Lay, one female officer was bitten on the arm and kicked in the face while another required £1,000 worth of dental work after his teeth were chipped when he was punched. A third was bitten on the hand as he stepped into prevent Le Lay from committing suicide.
The head of Jersey’s Prison Service Association has blasted the ‘lenient’ sentence of Shawn Le Lay and said members of the union felt they had been let down by the crown prosecution.
Alan Kearney claims the 44-year-old would have been locked up for longer if it had been police officers or nurses that had been attacked.
Mr Kearney has now written a letter (below) to the Bailiff, William Bailhache – who did not preside over the case – as well as the chairman of the Prison Board of Visitors, stating that members had ‘serious and legitimate concerns for their safety’ and that staff should receive the same protection as police officers.
However, he said: ‘I am astounded that we haven’t even had a reply to the letter, which was sent last week.’
Le Lay, who has Asperger’s Syndrome and personality disorders, initially faced five charges of grave and criminal assault to which he offered a guilty plea to four provided they were reduced to common assault.
He later pleaded guilty to one count of grave and criminal assault and eight common assaults.
Crown Advocate Julian Gollop told the court that three of Le Lay’s victims have had the ‘added concern and stress’ of having to undergo regular testing for HIV and hepatitis which have to be repeated at three and six months, but he added that all of their blood tests have been clear.
Mr Kearney said staff had felt let down by the decision to reduce the charges, adding: ‘When the police and Crown Prosecution charge someone with grave and criminal assault, they should be looking to prosecute on that charge, and it’s not for deals to be struck by the prosecution. They are doing victims a great disservice.
‘One member of staff was off for some considerable time after being assaulted.’
‘We don’t feel we are being protected by the courts and if anything we should be offered more protection.’
He said the sentencing had caused ‘anger’ among staff and had had a ‘huge impact’ on staff morale.
Mr Kearney said: ‘Even the starting point of three and a half years was completely short and we feel let down by the prosecution.’
Although Mr Kearney said that assaults were not common in the prison because of ‘good dynamics’ between prisoners and staff, he added: ‘We deal with seriously violent offenders on a daily basis.
‘We do whatever we can to review security on an hourly basis but from time to time prisoners are unpredictable. All we ask is for protection.’
Le Lay committed five offences at the prison in August last year, a further two in a van on the way to the Royal Court in October, and another at a court appearance in November when he headbutted a prison officer in front of Jurats.
In March, while awaiting sentencing, he punched another officer in the face during an incident in a prison cell.
At Le Lay’s sentencing on 28 April, Commissioner Sir Michael Birt said that under normal circumstances the Crown’s recommendation of three years and six months would have been accepted.
But he said that, following the advice of psychological experts, Le Lay’s sentencing should be reduced to minimise the chance of him having to return to La Moye after his hospital treatment in the UK, which he said would be ‘counter-productive’.
Sir Michael told him: ‘If your treatment is not complete when your sentence finishes then there would be no danger of premature release because the hospital would be able to apply to keep you longer for treatment.’
When contacted by this newspaper, the Bailiff offered a ‘no comment’ response. The Attorney General was also contacted for comment but a response was not received by the time of going to press.
From Alan Kearney, chairman, Jersey Prison Service Association, La Moye Prison, Rue Baal, St Brelade.
OUR association has written to the Bailiff and the chairman of the Prison Board of Visitors following the sentencing of an individual for nine serious assaults on prison officers. The mood and response of prison staff is one of shock and amazement at the lenient sentence handed out by the Royal Court last week
We asked the question, are Jersey Law Officers and those responsible for pursuing prosecutions abdicating their responsibilities to afford some protection to States of Jersey prison officers?
When crimes occur against our membership we would expect the full weight of the law to be implemented to protect them. Our members expect those that attack our staff to be prosecuted and fully brought to justice considering the environment we work in.
It appears that in this case the message that violence in prison is not tolerated and assaults on our hardworking staff are unacceptable have not been considered. Our members accept that we will always have a complex and challenging prison population.
Prison officers deserve and demand the best protection our courts can give them. Is it wrong for our law abiding society to expect that those individuals who commit grave and criminal assaults to be prosecuted and fully brought to justice?
Jersey Prison Service is there to protect the public, while preparing those in our care to lead law abiding lives upon release; we are not there to judge, punish or be assaulted.
In recent months we have had to deal with some horrific assaults on staff, one of which was witnessed by Jurats in the Royal Court while it was sitting. Our staff have to face some of the most difficult and dangerous people in our society, but also some of the saddest, most vulnerable and mentally ill prisoners on a daily basis.
Prison officers, while acting as such, have all the powers and authority of a police officer and should have the same protection for the difficult and dangerous work that they do on behalf of society. Following the sentencing of an individual this week in the Royal Court our members feel that safety in custody does not appear to be a priority.
The sentencing of an individual to three years for nine separate serious assaults on our staff, is in our opinion extremely lenient and fundamentally wrong. These assaults were all originally charged as grave and criminal. On sentencing by the Royal Court these four downgraded assault charges plus one grave and criminal assault were sentenced as concurrent.
If 11 States of Jersey police officers or 11 nurses were assaulted by the same individual would the same sentence be handed down? Our members think not.
We believe the court has abdicated its responsibility in protecting our hard working, loyal and professional officers and fear for the public in the future. The courts must provide protection and put in place sufficient deterrents to those who assault our members.
There must be zero tolerance on all assaults in prison and the only way to achieve this is to have deterrents.
