Magistrates said Edward Roxborough lost his temper during an unprovoked attack on a vulnerable youngster

A PEMBROKESHIRE man has been handed a suspended prison sentence after admitting assaulting a child in Narberth.

Edward Roxborough, aged 32, of Mynachlog-ddu, near Clunderwen, appeared before Swansea Magistrates’ Court for sentencing after pleading guilty to assault by beating.

The court heard that the offence took place last year and involved what magistrates described as an “unprovoked attack of a serious nature”.

Magistrates said Roxborough had reacted angrily and lost his temper against a defenceless and vulnerable child, who cried out in pain following the assault.

The offence was considered serious enough to cross the custody threshold.

Roxborough was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months.

The court said the sentence had been suspended in light of recent legislative changes and the presumption in favour of suspending short custodial terms.

He was also ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work and up to 20 rehabilitation activity days.

Roxborough must pay £400 in prosecution costs and a victim surcharge of £154.

A collection order was made, with the full amount due by August 27.

No compensation order was imposed, with magistrates noting that compensation could be pursued through other channels.

The prosecution was conducted by Adam Burcher, while Chris Evans represented Roxborough.

Reporting restrictions were imposed under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, preventing the child from being identified.

Ian Evans received a total 40-week prison sentence after being convicted of three motoring offences and admitting a fourth charge

A HAKIN motorist has been jailed for 40 weeks after he was caught driving while disqualified, uninsured and over the legal alcohol limit.

Ian Evans, aged 37, of James Street, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Monday (July 20) for trial on three road traffic charges.

The court heard that Evans drove a vehicle along Old Hakin Road, Hubberston, on May 2 despite being disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence.

He was also accused of using the vehicle without valid third-party insurance and driving after consuming excess alcohol.

A breath test showed Evans had 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35.

Evans had previously pleaded not guilty to all three charges, but he was found guilty following the trial.

He also changed his plea to guilty on a separate charge of failing to attend an initial drug assessment.

That offence related to an incident on March 5, when a sample taken from Evans indicated that cocaine may have been present in his body. He subsequently failed to attend an assessment intended to establish whether he was dependent upon, or had a propensity to misuse, a Class A drug.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 40 weeks.

Evans received 20 weeks’ imprisonment for drink-driving and eight weeks for driving while disqualified, with the latter sentence ordered to run concurrently. No separate penalties were imposed for the insurance or drug-assessment offences.

The court record states that the offences were committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence. His previous offending record, the standard of his driving and the distance travelled were also treated as aggravating factors.

Evans was disqualified from driving for five years, with an additional 70 days added to account for the time he will spend in custody.

He was also ordered to pay £650 towards Crown Prosecution Service costs.

The jury was not sure the teenager intended to kill his teacher, but found that he deliberately intended to cause her really serious harm

TO MANY people, the verdicts returned in the Milford Haven School stabbing trial may initially appear contradictory.

How could a teenager be cleared of attempting to murder his teacher, but convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent over the same incident?

The answer comes down to one precise legal distinction.

The jury was not sure that the teenager intended to kill Vicki Williams.

However, by an 11-1 majority, jurors were sure that he intended to wound her or cause her really serious harm.

The verdict therefore does not mean the jury considered the incident accidental, minor or simply reckless.

It means the prosecution proved a deliberate intention to cause serious injury, but did not prove an intention to kill beyond reasonable doubt.

The crucial difference between the charges

Attempted murder is a particularly difficult offence to prove because the prosecution must establish a specific intention to kill.

It is not enough to show that someone used a deadly weapon, carried out an extremely dangerous act or created an obvious risk of death.

The jury must be sure that death was the intended outcome.

By contrast, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, requires proof that the defendant intended to wound someone or cause really serious bodily harm.

That distinction is confirmed by Crown Prosecution Service guidance. Attempted murder requires an intention to kill, while a section 18 offence requires an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or a wound.

In straightforward terms, the verdict means:

The jury was sure he meant to cause serious injury, but was not sure he meant to cause death.

Why the attempted murder acquittal does not mean the jury believed it was an accident

The defence argued that Mrs Williams was injured during a struggle after she saw the knife and attempted to take control of it.

The guilty verdict on the section 18 charge means the majority of the jury cannot have accepted that the injuries were entirely accidental.

Nor did jurors merely find that the teenager had behaved recklessly or intended only to frighten the teacher.

To convict on count two, they had to be sure that he possessed the higher intention required for one of the most serious non-fatal offences in law.

The verdict therefore establishes that the teenager deliberately intended to wound Mrs Williams or cause her really serious harm.

What it does not establish is that he intended her to die.

What might have caused doubt about an intention to kill?

Juries do not explain their verdicts, and it would be wrong to claim that we know exactly what happened during their discussions.

However, the competing arguments presented during the trial show where the distinction may have arisen.

The prosecution relied on evidence that the teenager had brought a large kitchen knife into school, carried it in his bag, returned to Mrs Williams’ classroom and closed the door before the incident.

Mrs Williams suffered an injury to her head and wounds to her hands, which the prosecution said were defensive injuries.

The Crown argued that the teenager had selected the knife and deliberately waited until the end of the school day to attack her while she was alone.

The defence pointed to the absence of an obvious motive, disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the physical evidence and argued that the teenager had not continued the alleged attack when he could have done so.

His barrister told jurors that, if the teenager had genuinely intended to kill Mrs Williams, there had been opportunities to inflict further injuries.

The jury may have accepted that the knife was deliberately used to cause serious harm while remaining unsure that the teenager had formed a settled intention to end Mrs Williams’ life.

That is an inference from the verdict, rather than a known account of the jury’s deliberations.

Does not guilty mean innocent?

A not guilty verdict means the prosecution failed to make the jury sure of the particular offence charged.

It does not necessarily mean every juror was convinced that the defendant had no intention to kill.

There may simply have been reasonable doubt.

In this case, the jury’s decision on count two makes clear that it did not regard the classroom incident as innocent conduct.

The teenager was convicted of intentionally causing the type of harm covered by section 18.

Why was the guilty verdict 11-1?

Criminal juries are initially directed to try to reach unanimous verdicts.

After jurors have deliberated for a sufficient period, a judge may permit them to return a majority verdict.

Judge Paul Thomas KC indicated that he was prepared to accept a verdict on which at least ten jurors agreed.

When the jury initially reported that ten members were in agreement, he asked them to return to the jury room and make another effort to reach unanimity.

They later returned and convicted the teenager on count two by a majority of 11 to one.

That verdict is every bit as valid as a unanimous verdict.

It tells us that 11 jurors were sure he intended to cause really serious harm. It does not tell us why the remaining juror disagreed.

The division on the attempted murder charge has not been publicly stated and should not be assumed.

What sentence could he receive?

Causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries a maximum adult sentence of life imprisonment.

That maximum, however, gives little indication of the sentence likely to be imposed in this case.

The adult sentencing guideline contains an overall range of between two and 16 years. It categorises cases according to the offender’s culpability and the physical and psychological harm caused to the victim.

Planning or premeditation and the use of a highly dangerous weapon can indicate high culpability. The guideline specifically states that a knife may be considered a highly dangerous weapon, depending on the circumstances.

Where the injury falls within the lowest of the three adult harm categories but culpability is high, the adult starting point is five years, with a range of four to seven years.

A higher category could apply if the judge finds that Mrs Williams suffered grave, permanent or substantial long-term physical or psychological harm.

But the teenager must not be sentenced as an adult.

He was 15 at the time of the incident and is now 16. The court must consider his chronological age, maturity, emotional and developmental age, mental health, personal circumstances and capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

The youth sentencing guideline says courts may use roughly one-half to two-thirds of the equivalent adult sentence for offenders aged 15 to 17. It stresses that this is only a broad guide and must never be applied mechanically.

No reduction will be available for a guilty plea to count two because the teenager denied that charge and was convicted following a trial.

A sentence of several years in youth detention is therefore a realistic possibility.

It would, however, be premature to give a firm prediction such as three, four or five years.

The final result will depend on matters that have not yet been made public, including the pre-sentence report, any psychological or psychiatric assessments, the victim impact evidence and the judge’s conclusions about planning, maturity and future risk.

Could he receive a life sentence?

A life sentence is legally possible for the section 18 offence, but it is not the normal or automatic result.

For a child to receive extended detention or detention for life under the dangerous offender provisions, the court would have to find a significant risk that he would cause serious harm by committing further specified offences.

An extended sentence also requires the appropriate custodial term to be at least four years. Detention for life is regarded as a last resort where an extended sentence would not provide sufficient public protection.

There is currently not enough public information to suggest that such a finding will be made.

The more likely sentencing question is how many years of youth detention are required to reflect the seriousness of the offence while also recognising the defendant’s age and prospects of rehabilitation.

The judge cannot sentence him for attempted murder

The attempted murder acquittal places an important limit on sentencing.

Judge Thomas must sentence the teenager for the offence of which he was convicted.

He cannot impose punishment on the basis that the teenager intended to kill Mrs Williams, because the jury did not find that allegation proved.

The judge may consider planning, the use of the knife, the intended level of injury, the effect on Mrs Williams and the wider consequences for the school.

But those findings must remain consistent with the verdict that the teenager intended serious harm, not that he intended death.

Why has sentencing been adjourned?

The teenager is due to be sentenced on Thursday, September 3.

The adjournment allows reports to be prepared examining his background, maturity, mental health, risk, behaviour and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court will also consider the physical and psychological consequences for Mrs Williams and the wider impact of the incident.

Youth sentencing must be individualised. Custody is formally described as a last resort for children, although the seriousness of this conviction means a custodial sentence appears highly likely.

The verdict explained in one sentence

The jury was sure the teenager deliberately intended to cause Mrs Williams really serious harm, but was not sure that he intended to kill her.

That is why the two verdicts are legally consistent.

The attempted murder acquittal does not mean the incident was considered accidental. The section 18 conviction means the majority of the jury found that serious injury was intended.

The teenager will be sentenced at Swansea Crown Court on September 3.