Jersey Judgment

AG -v- R [2015] JRC 023 (30 January 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the number and severity of indecent images, aggravating features including repeat offending and attempt to blame another, a custodial sentence of 2 years is appropriate, with forfeiture of equipment, notification requirements, and restraining orders imposed.

Court disposition

conviction and custodial sentence

Orders

  • 2 years' imprisonment
  • forfeiture and destruction of computer tower
  • sex offender notification requirements for at least 10 years
  • restraining orders pursuant to Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 10 years

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr R

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Blakeley

The Crown

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Indecent Still Images: 97
  • Number of Indecent Moving Images: 7
  • Number of Level 4 Still Images: 54
  • Number of Level 4 Moving Images: 3
  • Length of Imprisonment: years 2
  • Length of Sex Offender Notification Requirements: years 10
  • Length of Restraining Orders: years 10

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown argued for a sentence above the guideline starting point due to the number and severity of images, aggravating features including a second offence and attempt to blame a friend, and sought notification and restraining orders.
Respondent
The defendant had made efforts to rehabilitate, found employment, and sought mitigation for sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091

    Sentencing guidelines for offences involving indecent images of children, category 4, Levels 4 or 5, initial figure of 3 years' imprisonment, increased for aggravating features.

  2. 02

    R-v-Oliver [2002[ EWCA (Crim) 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15

    Making indecent images is not a victimless crime; custodial sentences reflect societal condemnation.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the number and severity of indecent images, aggravating features including repeat offending and attempt to blame another, a custodial sentence of 2 years is appropriate, with forfeiture of equipment, notification requirements, and restraining orders imposed.

Obiter and limits

  • Court recognises defendant's previous efforts at rehabilitation and encourages further efforts.
  • Court found sentencing decision difficult but believes it is correct.

Court disposition

conviction and custodial sentence

  • 2 years' imprisonment
  • forfeiture and destruction of computer tower
  • sex offender notification requirements for at least 10 years
  • restraining orders pursuant to Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 10 years

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 023

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You are here to be sentenced on one count of making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 . Involved were 97 indecent still images and 7 indecent moving images of children under the age of 16, the offence being committed between February 2012 and June 2013, and the most serious part of that is that there were 54 still images and 3 moving images at R-v-Oliver [2002[ EWCA (Crim) 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15 Level 4.

2. In the case of AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 the Superior Number of this Court, and that was the Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt sitting with five Jurats, laid down some guidelines for offences involving indecent images of children. In your case the guidelines would suggest that your offence falls within category 4 - where an offender has made an image or possessed an image for distribution or show, falling within Levels 4 or 5, an initial figure in the region of 3 years' imprisonment would be appropriate. Now the Crown say that 3 years is only an initial figure because of the numbers of images involved here, particularly 54 Oliver images at Level 4, then the initial figure should go up and, furthermore, there is the aggravating feature of this being your second offence and, indeed, was exacerbated by your the attempt to blame your friend which also was an aggravating feature. Therefore it seems to us that the Crown was right in saying that the figure, after looking at the initial point, would have been 4 years' imprisonment subject to any reduction for mitigation.

3. What you, I am sure, do realise is that making these images is not a victimless crime. Young girls have really suffered sexual abuse to make these films and every time you look at those images you endorse the sexual abuse that young girls have suffered and that is why society reflects these offences with custodial sentences. It grieves the Court to see a man in your position with so much to offer, in the sense that you have, since the last occasion, found yourself a job and got your life back on track, only to lose it again now. We do not think that we have any alternative in this case but to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you and we are going to send you to prison for 2 years as the Crown has moved for on this Indictment.

4. We would like you to take out of this day, which is a bad day for you, some encouragement because the Court recognises the efforts that you made on the last occasion and we think you are capable of making those efforts again. You should serve your time, get what help you can while you are in prison, and try to retain as far as you can, those friendships which you have made and those support networks which you have; you have shown that you can start again and you will be able to do so when you are released from custody on this occasion. As I say, this is a case which the Court has found very difficult but we think that we are imposing the right sentence upon you.

5. So you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.

6. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the computer tower.

7. You are subject to the notification requirements as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders legislation. You will remain subject to those notification requirements for at least 10 years and cannot apply to come off the notification requirements list until 10 years have expired.

8. The Crown has moved for some Restraining Orders pursuant to Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and we apply those restrictive orders to you in exactly the same form the Crown has suggested to us. I am not going to read them out now but they are in the form which the Crown has sent out in the summary, which you have had Advocate Blakeley, and would you provide that summary in writing to the defendant.

9. Mr R, if you were to breach these Restraining Orders then that would be a criminal offence as well and you would be liable to be prosecuted for it so you must pay attention to them. They will be in place for 10 years from today's date. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG-v-R [2009] JRC 137 . Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. R-v-Oliver [2002[ EWCA (Crim) 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15 . AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 . AG-v-Videgrain [2014] JRC 040 . AG-v-Bowey [2013] JRC 117 . Page Last Updated: 16 Jan 2017 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.

R-v-Oliver [2002[ EWCA (Crim) 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15

Case cited

AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091

Case cited

AG-v-R [2009] JRC 137

Case cited

AG-v-Videgrain [2014] JRC 040

Case cited

AG-v-Bowey [2013] JRC 117

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.