Jersey Judgment

AG v Laffoley [2022] JRC 128 (06 June 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court imposed a 20-year period for both the sex offenders register and restraining order, ordered forfeiture and destruction of telephones, declined to order contribution to costs, and determined concurrent sentences for breaches of restraining orders with consecutive sentences for IIOC offences, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

Orders

  • Defendant to remain on Sex Offenders Register for 20 years
  • Restraining order imposed for 20 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of telephones
  • No order for contribution to costs
  • Concurrent sentences for breaches of restraining orders
  • Consecutive sentences for IIOC offences
  • Total sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment

02

Material facts

Parties

Crown

Prosecution Counsel: Crown Advocate

Defendant

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Sex Offenders Register Period: 20
  • Restraining Order Period: 20
  • Total Imprisonment: 9.5
  • Breach of Restraining Orders Imprisonment: 3.5
  • Count 1 Imprisonment: 6
  • Count 2 Imprisonment: 2.25
  • Count 3 Imprisonment: 0.75
  • Count 5 Imprisonment: 2.5
  • Count 6 Imprisonment: 1.25
  • Count 8 Imprisonment: 6
  • Count 9 Imprisonment: 2.25
  • Count 10 Imprisonment: 0.75
  • Count 11 Imprisonment: 1.25
  • Count 12 Imprisonment: 6
  • Count 13 Imprisonment: 2.25
  • Count 14 Imprisonment: 0.75
  • Count 15 Imprisonment: 1.25

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Crown advocated for 20-year periods for both sex offenders register and restraining order, forfeiture and destruction of telephones, no contribution to costs, and concurrent sentences for breaches with consecutive sentences for IIOC offences.
Respondent
No arguments from the defendant are recorded in the judgment.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Crown approach as accepted by the court

    Concurrent sentences for breaches of restraining orders; consecutive sentences for IIOC offending.

  2. 02

    Police Chiefs' Council Sentencing Levels

    Sentencing guidelines for IIOC offences and breaches of restraining orders.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court imposed a 20-year period for both the sex offenders register and restraining order, ordered forfeiture and destruction of telephones, declined to order contribution to costs, and determined concurrent sentences for breaches of restraining orders with consecutive sentences for IIOC offences, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

  • Defendant to remain on Sex Offenders Register for 20 years
  • Restraining order imposed for 20 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of telephones
  • No order for contribution to costs
  • Concurrent sentences for breaches of restraining orders
  • Consecutive sentences for IIOC offences
  • Total sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment

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

[2022] JRC 128

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. We will give our reasons for our decision in a written judgment that will follow subsequently, and we will simply at this point deal with the final sentence and orders in this matter.

2. We agree that the period before which the defendant can apply to be released from the provisions of the Sex Offenders Register should be one of 20 years. With regard to the restraining order, we think in the circumstances of this case it is correct to impose a period of 20 years and we make the restraining order in the terms read out by the Crown Advocate during the course of this hearing. We do not propose to read them again.

3. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the telephones as requested by the Crown and we do not make any order for contribution to costs.

4. We agree with the general approach of the Crown in terms of sentence, that the breach of the restraining orders justify concurrent sentences with regard to each other but consecutive sentences with regard to the IIOC offending. We have made some variations both to the starting points and indeed to the finishing points which we will now set out, but the reasons, as I have said, will be explained in a judgment that will be delivered subsequently.

5. For the breach of the restraining orders, from a starting point of 4½ years' imprisonment, we agree with the Crown that the sentences should be 3½ years' imprisonment.

6. With regard to Count 1 on the Second Indictment the sentence is 6 years' imprisonment. With regard to Count 2 the sentence is 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 3 the sentence is 9 months imprisonment. With regard to Count 5 the sentence is 2½years imprisonment. With regard to Count 6 the sentence is 15 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 8 (we have previously dealt with Count 7 - being the breach of the restraining order) the sentence is 6 years' imprisonment. With regard to Count 9 the sentence is 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 10 the sentence is 9 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 11 the sentence is 15 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 12 the sentence is 6 years' imprisonment. With regard to Count 13 the sentence is 2 years 3 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 14 the sentence is 9 months' imprisonment. With regard to Count 15 the sentence is 15 months imprisonment.

7. Those sentences are concurrent other that the breach of restraining orders which are consecutive making a total of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Authorities Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG v Le Gallais [2021] (1) JLR 24. AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 . AG v N [2011] JRC 157 . AG v N [2013] JRC 052 . AG v Laffoley [2017] JRC 058 . R v Smith and Ors [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82 . Police Chiefs' Council Sentencing Levels. Page Last Updated: 11 Jul 2022 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map © Jersey Legal Information Board 2001- This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser . If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099. 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 Le Gallais [2021] (1) JLR 24

Case cited

AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091

Case cited

AG v N [2011] JRC 157

Case cited

AG v N [2013] JRC 052

Case cited

AG v Laffoley [2017] JRC 058

Case cited

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

Case cited

Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.