Two ‘foolish chaps’ sentenced for urinating on an unconscious man in a park
Two 'mischievous young men' who urinated on an unconscious man in a park and pressed their buttocks against his face have been sentenced to five months in jail.
Laurie Murphy and Jake Langlois caused considerable dismay among onlookers when they engaged in offensive behaviour in broad daylight, within the sight of tourists and children.
Despite assertions that the victim was Langlois’ closest friend and had not lodged any complaint, they were still incarcerated.
During a session at the Magistrate’s Court on the Channel Island of Jersey, Advocate Katie Ridley, representing the prosecution, informed the court that witnesses alerted the police upon witnessing the incident at Parade Gardens in St. Helier around 12:30 pm on June 4.
During Thursday’s hearing, Ridley recounted one witness’s statement: “The man seemed incapacitated. It was appalling. I was truly taken aback by what I witnessed.”
Upon police arrival, the defendants appeared unstable on their feet, were incoherent, and emitted a strong smell of alcohol. Langlois informed the officers: “We were just engaging in foolish behaviour – that’s all it was.”
Subsequently, the pair were apprehended for being intoxicated and disorderly, as well as for indecent exposure. However, mobile phone footage capturing the incident, including the act of urination, was surrendered to the authorities. Murphy, aged 32, and Langlois, aged 34, were consequently charged with committing a serious breach of public decency, to which they pleaded guilty on September 30.
Advocate James Bell, representing Murphy, stated, “He sincerely regrets his actions, offering a heartfelt apology. He acknowledges the wrongdoing in his behaviour.”
Emphasising his client’s early admission of guilt and reduced alcohol consumption since the incident, Bell clarified that the individual upon whom the pair had urinated was a friend who hadn’t filed any complaint.
“By appearing in court, he aims to demonstrate goodwill,” added Advocate Bell.
Advocate Nicholas Mière, defending Langlois, noted, “There was an unfortunate streak of pranking that day.” He highlighted, “The victim happens to be Mr Langlois’s closest friend. It’s crucial to dispel the notion that they were strangers.”
Mière mentioned Langlois’s forthcoming parenthood, stating, “This emphasises the need for responsible future conduct. He acknowledges the gravity of the situation.”
Advocate Mière proposed the consideration of a probation order for his client. However, Relief Magistrate Peter Harris disagreed, stating, “There’s mention of a prank gone awry, but this goes beyond that.”
“In this instance, an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate.”
