JERSEY’S Court of Appeal convened on Tuesday to consider whether the community sentence given to a man who repeatedly attacked his former partner in “one of the worst cases of enduring domestic violence” was too lenient.
Terence Michael Tremarco (61) was sentenced in September last year after pleading guilty to nine counts of grave and criminal assault and one of assault which took place more than 20 years ago.
Tremarco was given 456 hours’ community service for the assaults, which left his victim with permanent scars on her face and psychological harm.
During sentencing, Crown Advocate Luke Sette, prosecuting, said: “This is one of the worst cases of enduring domestic violence to have appeared before the courts.”
Tremarco did not receive a domestic abuse protection order under the Domestic Abuse Law 2022, but was given a five-year restraining order.
In November, the Law Officers’ Department was given permission to appeal the case.
The sentencing decision was brought to the court under Article 45A of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, which states that the Attorney General can refer a case to the Court of Appeal for a sentencing review if it is “unduly lenient”.
Advocate Sette appeared in front of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday morning to appeal the sentence on behalf of the Attorney General.
He claimed that the Royal Court had under-valued the impact of deterrence, and over-valued the effect of the mitigation available to Tremarco.
Advocate Sette stressed that the victim had endured long-lasting harm, suffering with symptoms of PTSD, and said that “the harm caused was not only physical, but psychological”.
She had also suffered several injuries, he said, with some traces of the offending still visible today.
He added that a sentence should not just deter an individual offender but also deter others from offending.
Tremarco’s attacks included several instances of non-fatal strangulation, which Crown Advocate Sette said was a threat to the victim’s life.
“Non-fatal strangulation is associated with severe trauma in its victims and is in fact experienced as a real threat to life,” he said. “It is an experience of potential death.”
He cited research by Dr Jane Monckton-Smith – a leading academic in the area of domestic homicide – saying that non-fatal strangulation was one of the leading predictors of homicide in a relationship.
Visible injuries weren’t enough to demonstrate its impact, he said, adding that it wasn’t clear whether the victim had had a neurological assessment.
Advocate Sette stressed Tremarco’s “abuse of trust or power”, adding that the assaults had happened under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The woman was entitled to feel safe in her own home and the assaults were committed by someone who should have had her best interests in mind, he said.
The crown advocate asked the court to give Tremarco a five-year custodial sentence – the same sentence that was asked for during the original Royal Court sentencing hearing.
But Advocate Greg Herold-Howes, defending, argued that Tremarco’s sentence may have been lenient, but it was not “unduly” lenient.
“This is a sentence [which] while the court may conclude that it is lenient, it cannot conclude that it was unduly so,” he said.
Advocate Herold-Howes reminded the court that Tremarco had spent 24 years rehabilitating himself and that the community service would be the final step he had to take.
“I think the court can quite comfortably find that this is an exceptional case,” he said.
Tremarco has complied with the community service order and has already served more than 100 hours of his community service, the court heard.
Quizzed by the judges on whether the passage of time was enough to warrant special circumstances, Advocate Herold-Howes said that it was the combination of a number of factors that warranted the exceptional treatment.
If the case had been heard immediately after the offending, asking for a non-custodial sentence would have been unrealistic, the advocate admitted.
The court reserved its judgement and said it hoped to share its decision during the course of this week’s Court of Appeal sitting.
The Bailiff, Sir Timothy Le Cocq, was presiding with Court of Appeal judges Clare Montgomery and Michael Furness.
