AG -v- Santos [2015] JRC 067A (07 April 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] JRC 067A
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The seriousness of the attempted rape and its devastating effect on the victim warranted a substantial custodial sentence and minimum notification period; deportation was not recommended by majority decision.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
Orders
- 7 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 4 years' imprisonment on Count 2, concurrent
- 4 years' imprisonment on Count 3, concurrent
- minimum 5-year sex offender notification period from 20 February 2014
- no recommendation for deportation
- Attorney General to investigate victim compensation award
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ProsecutorDefendant
Defendant Counsel: Advocate YatesVictim
VictimAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment (count 1): 7
- Imprisonment (count 2): 4
- Imprisonment (count 3): 4
- Minimum Notification Period: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for attempted rape
- 02
sex offender notification period
- 03
deportation recommendation
- 04
victim compensation review
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued for a reduction in sentence due to the offence being attempted rape rather than the full offence.
- Respondent
- The defence opposed deportation and sought consideration of mitigating factors.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010
Minimum notification period under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 is 5 years.
- 02
R v Billam (1986) 82 Cr App R 347
Sentencing for attempted rape must reflect seriousness and impact on victim.
- 03
AG v Herlihy [1995] JLR N22a
Deportation is discretionary and requires majority decision.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The seriousness of the attempted rape and its devastating effect on the victim warranted a substantial custodial sentence and minimum notification period; deportation was not recommended by majority decision.
Obiter and limits
- Attorney General to investigate victim compensation award for possible revision.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
- 7 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 4 years' imprisonment on Count 2, concurrent
- 4 years' imprisonment on Count 3, concurrent
- minimum 5-year sex offender notification period from 20 February 2014
- no recommendation for deportation
- Attorney General to investigate victim compensation award
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. As can be seen the Court has been some time in discussion on the number of issues that we have had to consider and, in view of the lateness of the hour, we are going to give our decision now but we will set out our reasons in a written judgment which will follow later.
2. Suffice it to say that in our view this is a very serious case in which the victim was subjected to a terrifying, degrading and demeaning ordeal at the hands of a stranger, which has had a devastating effect on her life. In general we have accepted the conclusions of the Crown, save in respect of the reduction for this being an attempted rape as opposed to the full offence. We will therefore be increasing the conclusions of the Crown.
3. Starting with the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 we confirm that 5 years will be the minimum period for the defendant to apply to be released from the notification requirements and that will date from 20 th February, 2014.
4. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, which makes a total of 7 years' imprisonment.
5. By a majority and after a difficult discussion, the Jurats have decided not to recommend the deportation of the defendant at the end of his sentence.
6. Advocate Yates, we do ask for the Attorney General to investigate the award made to the victim by the Criminal Compensation Board to see whether that can and should be, if appropriate, revisited. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. Da Graca v AG [2006] JCA 038 . De la Haye v AG [1995] JLR N 27c. AG v Herlihy [1995] JLR N22a. AG-v-Herlihy 1995/042. AG-v-X [2010] JRC 111 . AG v Donnelly [2009] JRC 170. AG-v-Z [2010] JRC 016 . AG v Vincent [2013] JRC 203 . AG v Lally [2014] JRC 120B . AG v U [2014] JRC 102B . AG v De Sousa [2012] JRC 110 . AG v Benest [2012] JRC 139 . R v Billam (1986) 82 Cr App R 347. R v Millberry [2002] EWCA 2891. Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.