Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Lochhead [2014] JRC 093 (11 April 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the defendant's genuine remorse, guilty plea, positive probation and psychological reports, and ongoing voluntary engagement with rehabilitation, the court determined that a probation order and community service, rather than imprisonment, best served the interests of society and the defendant's rehabilitation.

Court disposition

Probation order and community service imposed; restraining orders partially granted; forfeiture and destruction of computer ordered.

Orders

  • Probation Order for 2 years concurrent on each charge
  • Community Service totaling 240 hours across all counts
  • Placement on the Register for at least 5 years
  • Restraining Orders relating to computer use for 5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the computer
  • Other requested restraining orders denied

02

Material facts

Parties

Unspecified Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Unspecified Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Community Service (total): 240
  • Probation Order (years): 2
  • Register Minimum Period (years): 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown requested restraining orders and likely advocated for a custodial sentence given the seriousness and repeated nature of the offences.
Respondent
The defendant's advocate emphasized the guilty plea, genuine remorse, good work record, and ongoing voluntary engagement with probation services, arguing for a non-custodial sentence focused on rehabilitation.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guidelines for Sexual Offences Act 2003

    Custodial sentences are typical for indecent exposure with aggravating factors such as masturbation.

  2. 02

    Probation Service and psychological report

    Probation and community-based interventions may be preferable where rehabilitation is likely and supported by professional reports.

  3. 03

    Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007

    Restraining orders may be imposed to protect the public from further harm, particularly regarding computer use and indecent images.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the defendant's genuine remorse, guilty plea, positive probation and psychological reports, and ongoing voluntary engagement with rehabilitation, the court determined that a probation order and community service, rather than imprisonment, best served the interests of society and the defendant's rehabilitation.

Obiter and limits

  • The court emphasized that failure to comply with probation or community service, or re-offending, would likely result in imprisonment.
  • The court noted that the imposed courses and community service are rigorous and not a light consequence.

Court disposition

Probation order and community service imposed; restraining orders partially granted; forfeiture and destruction of computer ordered.

  • Probation Order for 2 years concurrent on each charge
  • Community Service totaling 240 hours across all counts
  • Placement on the Register for at least 5 years
  • Restraining Orders relating to computer use for 5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the computer
  • Other requested restraining orders denied

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

[2014] JRC 093

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You exposed yourself in public in the presence of young teenage girls, usually on the beach, once in the bus station and another time at a bus stop, on some nine separation occasions, three of them in the summer of 2012 and six in the summer of 2013. On three of those occasions you were masturbating, albeit not to ejaculation. Following your arrest the police found nine indecent images of children on your computer, but it is right to say that these were at Level 1 on the relevant scale, which means that they were erotic posing but no sexual activity in those images. It is not your first offence for exposing yourself because in 2006 you appeared before the Magistrates Court for two such offences and you were given a suspended sentence of 3 months' imprisonment.

2. Your advocate has put before us all the things that can be said on your behalf. She has emphasised your guilty plea and particularly your remorse, and we have read your letter. She supports that by reference to the probation report which assesses your remorse as being genuine. She points to your good work record and the reference.

3. Nevertheless, normally such offences, particularly where there is an element of something such as masturbation, will attract a prison sentence. In this case the Probation Service and the psychological report recommend against that course. They say it would achieve nothing in terms of addressing your issues. They recommend that there be a Probation Order which enables you to undertake the necessary courses to make sure that those issues are addressed. What has particularly influenced us is that you have in fact been doing this voluntarily with the Probation Service and with others since your arrest back in July of last year. In all the circumstances we have just been satisfied that society's best interests are served by making sure you get proper treatment to address these issues so that you do not do it again, rather than by sending you to prison, where the likelihood is that you would come out with the problems unaddressed, or at any rate not addressed so satisfactorily. So we are going to agree with the recommendation of the Probation Service.

4. We are going to impose a Probation Order for 2 years, concurrent upon each charge but, as well as getting the help from Probation and attending the courses which they direct you to attend, you must be punished for what you did. So we are also going to impose Community Service, which means you can repay what you have done by working free for the community. We are going to impose a total Community Service sentence of 240 hours' which we say is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment. As a matter of detail it will be Count 1; 120 hours', Count 2; 210 hours', Count 3; 120 hours', Count 4; 120 hours', Count 5; 210 hours', Count 6; 120 hours', Count 7; 120 hours', Count 8; 120 hours', Count 9; 210 hours', Count 10; 30 hours', consecutive, making 240 hours' in all.

5. You will be placed on the Register and we say it must be at least 5 years before you can apply to get off that.

6. As to the Restraining Orders that have been asked for by the Crown, we are going to make the first two orders which relate to your computer because the Court takes the view that anyone who views indecent images does pose a threat of serious sexual harm to those unfortunate children who are the subject of the making of those images. However, we are not going to make the other two orders as requested by the Crown as we do not think that that is necessary in this case, given the particular nature of your offending and the contents of the Probation Report. We say that these Restraining Orders will last for 5 years from today.

7. The Court is giving you a chance. You must not think that you have escaped lightly. These courses that are to be undertaken with Probation are to be rigorous and you are to attend them. If you do not do what the Probation Service tells you and attend all the necessary courses, if you do not turn up on the dot to do the Community Service and do it properly, if you were to re-offend, then you will be brought back here and at that stage the likely outcome is that you will be sent to prison.

8. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the computer. Authorities AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 . R v Pedley [2000] WL 1629537. R v Cosco [2005] EWCA Crim 207. Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guidelines for Sexual Offences Act 2003 (extracts). Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007. R v Smith and Ors [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82 . Page Last Updated: 23 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] JRC 091

Case cited

R v Pedley [2000] WL 1629537

Case cited

R v Cosco [2005] EWCA Crim 207

Case cited

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

Case cited

Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007

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.