Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Jalam [2015] JRC 169 (18 August 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the seriousness and sustained nature of the assault and indecent assault, the defendant's poor record, and the profound impact on the victim, a total sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment is justified, with ancillary orders for exclusion, notification, and restraint as sought by the Crown.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 12 months' imprisonment for assault
  • 4.5 years' imprisonment for indecent assault, concurrent
  • Exclusion Order from licensed premises for 2 years from release
  • Notification requirements under Sexual Offenders Law for 8 years
  • Restraining Order for 8 years as per Crown's request (excluding 89(iii))

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Unnamed Defendant

Defendant Counsel: defence advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment for Assault: months 12
  • Imprisonment for Indecent Assault: months 54
  • Exclusion Order Duration: years 2
  • Notification Requirements Duration: years 8
  • Restraining Order Duration: years 8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown submitted that the offences were serious, sustained, and warranted significant custodial sentences, and sought exclusion and restraining orders as well as notification requirements under the Sexual Offenders Law.
Respondent
The defence relied on the guilty plea, a letter of remorse, other letters, and mitigation including the defendant's intoxication and the consensual nature of earlier interactions.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010

    Sentencing for sexual offences must reflect seriousness, harm to the victim, and public protection.

  2. 02

    AG v Kelly [2005] JRC 175

    Credit for guilty plea is appropriate but limited where evidence is overwhelming.

  3. 03

    AG v Carvalho [2007] JRC 034

    Concurrent sentences may be imposed for related offences arising from the same incident.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the seriousness and sustained nature of the assault and indecent assault, the defendant's poor record, and the profound impact on the victim, a total sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment is justified, with ancillary orders for exclusion, notification, and restraint as sought by the Crown.

Obiter and limits

  • The victim will carry the effects of the defendant's aggression for a long time.
  • The defendant's guilty plea is acknowledged but the court doubts he would have pleaded guilty absent clear CCTV evidence.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 12 months' imprisonment for assault
  • 4.5 years' imprisonment for indecent assault, concurrent
  • Exclusion Order from licensed premises for 2 years from release
  • Notification requirements under Sexual Offenders Law for 8 years
  • Restraining Order for 8 years as per Crown's request (excluding 89(iii))

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 169

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced today for one count of assault and one count of indecent assault on a young woman in St Helier in the early hours of 23 rd March this year. This was a nasty and sustained incident in which you forced the woman, who you had met earlier that evening, into the corner of a deserted carpark and subjected her to threats, aggression and violence and to a sustained indecent assault. We have read her statement and the effects on her have been profound and it is not too extreme to suggest that she will carry the effects of your drunken predatory aggression with her for a long time to come.

2. It is true that she also was intoxicated and that there was playful consensual activity as you walked through town together but none of that either explains or justifies what you later subjected her to. It must have been a terrifying ordeal for her.

3. You do not have the benefit of a good character in that although you do not have previous convictions in respect of sexual offending your record is, nonetheless, poor and contains one instance of violence against a woman.

4. You have pleaded guilty and you are entitled to credit for that but the Court is not convinced that had the CCTV evidence, which we have seen, not been clear you would not have continued to maintain your innocence. The Court's view is that the Crown is correct in its approach in the light of all of the circumstances.

5. We note the mitigation including, of course, the guilty plea and your letter of remorse and the other letters and your advocate who has said all that can properly be said on your behalf.

6. The Court is satisfied however that the Crown is right in its conclusions and in respect of Count 1 you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and in respect of Count 2 you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment, the two sentences to be concurrent making a total of 4½ years' imprisonment.

7. The Court makes an Exclusion Order from licensed premises in the terms moved for by the Crown for a period of 2 years from the date of your release.

8. The period after which you may apply to come off the notification requirements under the Sexual Offenders Law is a period of 8 years from today's date.

9. We also make a Restraining Order in the terms requested by the Crown in paragraphs 89(i) and 89(ii) again for a period of 8 years from today's date. We do not make an order in the terms of 89(iii); in the light of the other orders we have made we do not regard that as a proportionate, or necessary. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG v Kelly [2005] JRC 175 . AG v Carvalho [2007] JRC 034 . AG v Benest [2012] JRC 139 . AG v Santos [2015] JRC 067A . AG v Santos [2015] JRC 077 . AG v Correia [2015] JRC 083 . R v Milberry [2002] EWCA 2891. R v E [2003] 2 Cr. App. R.

9. R v Smith [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82 . 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 Kelly [2005] JRC 175

Case cited

AG v Carvalho [2007] JRC 034

Case cited

AG v Benest [2012] JRC 139

Case cited

AG v Santos [2015] JRC 067A

Case cited

AG v Santos [2015] JRC 077

Case cited

AG v Correia [2015] JRC 083

Case cited

R v Milberry [2002] EWCA 2891

Case cited

R v E [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 9

Case cited

R v Smith [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82

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.