AG v Y [2023] JRC 191 (20 October 2023)

JUDGMENT THE lieutenant BAILIFF: 1. Sit down please. 2. ("Y") your 34 previous convictions include one of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 and, the following year in 2017, one of incest with a girl then aged 14.

3. For the latter offence you were sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment, and in addition the sentencing court imposed a Restraining Order upon you, prohibiting you from being alone with any female person whom you know or believe to be under the age of 16 years.

4. Despite this Order, indeed in flagrant breach of it, you have been alone on three occasions earlier this year with a girl whom you admit to knowing is only 15 years old.

5. On the first occasion you were in a supermarket together and on both the second and the third occasions in a multi-storey car park. You told the Probation officer that your interest in the girl was not sexual, but we think that this claim does not lie at all comfortably with the fact that on the second occasion you were seen in the car park your trousers were around your ankles.

6. Restraining Orders are not a punishment. They are there to protect our children from serious sexual harm. They exist in order to reduce the risk to young persons that convicted sex offenders would otherwise pose to them. It seemed to the Probation officer that you might not have quite grasped this when she was speaking to you; we sincerely hope that you understand it quite clearly now.

7. Attorney General v G [2011] JRC 214 was the first case in Jersey involving the breach of a Restraining Order. At paragraph 4 the then Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt, said this: "For a person who poses such a risk then to flout the order of the Court is, in our judgment, very serious. ... A strong message therefore needs to be sent that offenders must take all reasonable steps to avoid breaching their order." And at paragraph 5 he continued: "Furthermore, the probation report prepared for us in this case suggests that there is a view among offenders of this nature that breach of a restraining order is not a matter which will be taken particularly seriously. We wish to make it clear that that is not the case and to disabuse any persons who hold such a view. For the reasons we have given, we consider that breach of a restraining order will be treated seriously and in most cases is likely to result in a prison sentence, certainly if there is any deliberate breach of any significance." 8. We respectfully agree. Breach of Restraining Orders is a very serious matter as indeed is evidenced by the fact that the maximum sentence, even for a single breach, is one of five years' imprisonment.

9. The Crown contends, and we accept, that these were not technical breaches. You were acting entirely voluntarily. You know and you knew then that you were under a positive duty not to be in the company of any girl under 16 years of age. One of the witnesses describes you as having "looked like a deer in the headlights". You knew that what you were doing was wrong. These were deliberate breaches, and they were of significance.

10. We note from the pre-trial report that you are considered to be at high risk of re-conviction.

11. In mitigation you were cooperative with the police, and you admitted your guilt at a very early stage. In addition, there is no evidence of actual harm to Miss X or that any sexual contact occurred. Your Advocate has made a powerful address to us and urged us to impose a Probation order - a very special form of Probation order. But we are unable to do that. There must be a custodial sentence. In a case of this nature it is more or less inevitable.

12. As there are three separate and distinct breaches of the Restraining Orders involved here it would be normal for us to impose consecutive sentences, but this would involve a total sentence that would be too long. Accordingly, we are asked to impose concurrent sentences, adopting the approach that counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment are aggravating features of count 3. We are content to adopt that approach. The prosecution moves for a total sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and in our judgment that is right.

13. The sentences are therefore as follows: would you stand please. (i) Count 1, 18 months' imprisonment. (ii) Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent. (iii) Counts 3, 21 months' imprisonment concurrent. (iv) Thus, making a total of 21 months' imprisonment in all. (v) You are also in breach of two Probation orders. The Crown moves that in the circumstances it would be appropriate to revoke them. We agree and so order. (vi) There will be no order as to costs. We urge you to take full advantage of all the help and support you can get during your time at HM Prison La Moye and make this time as positive as you possibly can. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG v G [2011] JRC 214 . AG v Facchino [2020] JRC 093 . AG v Facchino [2020] JRC 113. AG v Gassula -Sole [2018] JRC 122 . R v Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 . AG v Y [2017] JRC 093 . Page Last Updated: 20 Nov 2023 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