Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Hosking [2015] JRC 173 (21 August 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendant is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, due to the seriousness of the offences, the number and nature of the images, and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence, despite significant mitigation.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Defendant subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 5 years from 26th June 2015
  • Restrictive orders regarding electronic devices for 5 years from judgment date
  • Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent
  • Forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: through counsel

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Movies Made: 474
  • Number of Still Images Made: 34
  • Number of Movies at Level 4 Copine Scale: 29
  • Imprisonment Period (months): 18
  • Notification Period (years): 5
  • Restrictive Orders Period (years): 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant, through counsel, did not oppose the restrictive orders and presented mitigation including genuine remorse, a guilty plea, and cooperation with authorities.
Respondent
The Crown moved for restrictive orders and argued that the number of images was a significant aggravating feature warranting a higher starting point for sentencing.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010

    Notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 apply automatically upon conviction.

  2. 02

    AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1

    Sentencing guidelines for indecent images of children offences as set out in AG-v-Godson and Crowley.

  3. 03

    Court policy and cited authorities

    Custodial sentences are generally required for offences involving indecent images of children unless exceptional circumstances exist.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendant is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, due to the seriousness of the offences, the number and nature of the images, and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence, despite significant mitigation.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court expresses hope that the defendant will avail himself of treatment and help in prison.
  • These are not victimless crimes; real children are exploited and suffer as a result of the market created by such activity.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Defendant subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 5 years from 26th June 2015
  • Restrictive orders regarding electronic devices for 5 years from judgment date
  • Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent
  • Forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2015] JRC 173

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. We deal first with matters under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 . As a result of your conviction on 26 th June, 2015, the notification requirements under the Law automatically applied to you. We order that they should so apply for a period of 5 years from 26 th June this year before you may apply for them to be raised.

2. You are assessed as being at a moderate risk of sexual reoffending and the Court is satisfied that you pose a threat of serious sexual harm within the meaning of the Law and accordingly we make the Restrictive Orders which you, through counsel, did not oppose, moved for by the Crown, specifically that:- (i) That the defendant produce to any police officer, forthwith on request, at any time, any computer or any device which may access the internet, or any telephone or mobile device, or any device which can store photographs electronically, which belongs to him or is in his possession, it being noted that such requests may be made anywhere, including by the police attending at the defendant's place of residence. (ii) That the defendant is prohibited from owning, or having in his possession, or having access to, any device capable of accessing the internet unless:- (a) it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use; and (b) The defendant ensures that such history is not deleted. Those orders will also last for a period of 5 years but from today's date.

3. You are to be sentenced for two counts of making a number of indecent images of children and one count of distributing such images. You made a total of 474 movies and 34 still images; 29 movies were at Level 4 of what is referred to as the Copine scale and this places you, in the Court's view, within category 4 of the guidelines set out in the AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1. As such the starting consideration for the Court is a period of 3 years' imprisonment. The total offending spanned some 2 years and involved a significant number of images. We consider this latter factor as an aggravating feature as suggested by the Crown but in our view it is not as serious an aggravating feature in this case and for these numbers of images as the Crown argues, and we think the correct starting point is 3½ years' imprisonment rather than 4.

4. We have considered very carefully the mitigation available to you including your expressions of remorse which we take as genuine and you deserve the fullest credit for your guilty plea, which is of a high value, and you were entirely cooperative with the police and with the prosecution authorities. We have considered very carefully the social enquiry report and the psychiatric report and have asked ourselves anxiously whether or not we can deal with this matter on a non-custodial basis.

5. The Court's policy is, however, clear and reflects the facts these are not victimless crimes. Real children are exploited and suffer as a result of the market that this activity creates. We do not, in this case, find that there are the exceptional circumstances to enable us to depart from the requirement for a custodial sentence.

6. However, allowing for all of the available mitigation which we view as significant in this case, and in the light of the matters set out in the social enquiry report, we believe that the conclusion reached by the Crown is too high.

7. Accordingly you are sentenced in respect of Count 1 to a period of 18 months' imprisonment, in respect of Count 2 to a period of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent and in respect of Count 3 also to a period of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment.

8. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the computer equipment.

9. The Court expresses to you the hope that you will avail yourself of whatever treatment and help in prison may be available. Authorities AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1. AG-v-Maguire [2012] JRC 089 . AG-v- Bowey [2013] JRC 117 . AG-v- Langlands [2013] JRC 106 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1

Case cited

AG-v-Maguire [2012] JRC 089

Case cited

AG-v-Bowey [2013] JRC 117

Case cited

AG-v-Langlands [2013] JRC 106

Case cited

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.