Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Young [2013] JRC 212 (01 November 2013)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The seriousness of the offences, high number of images at the most serious levels, prior convictions, lack of cooperation, and high risk of reoffending justified a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, with notification requirements and restraining orders for 5 years.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Defendant subject to notification requirements for 5 years
  • Restraining orders imposed for 5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of equipment ordered

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Images Downloaded: 5,189
  • Images at Copine Level 4 and 5: 1,855
  • Notification Period (years): 5
  • Restraining Order Period (years): 5
  • Sentence on Most Counts (years): 3.5
  • Sentence on Count 7 (years): 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant's advocate argued that the defendant initially sought images to see if there were pictures of himself due to past abuse, but later viewed them for sexual satisfaction. Mitigation included guilty plea, unfortunate background, and caring responsibilities.
Respondent
The Crown sought notification requirements, restraining orders, and argued aggravating features including number of images, prior convictions, lack of cooperation, and risk of reoffending.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

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

    Offences involving indecent images of children are not victimless crimes and must be treated seriously, especially at higher Copine levels.

  2. 02

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

    Making and distribution of indecent images fuels demand and encourages further abuse.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The seriousness of the offences, high number of images at the most serious levels, prior convictions, lack of cooperation, and high risk of reoffending justified a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, with notification requirements and restraining orders for 5 years.

Obiter and limits

  • Mitigation for background and caring responsibilities was considered but did not warrant further reduction beyond the Crown's recommendations.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Defendant subject to notification requirements for 5 years
  • Restraining orders imposed for 5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of equipment ordered

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

[2013] JRC 212

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. We begin by saying that the defendant will be subject to the notification requirements under the Law and we say that the period, which must expire before he can apply to come off it, is 5 years. We also make the Restraining Orders moved for by the Crown, which the defendant has not objected to; we are satisfied on the evidence before us that he does pose a threat of serious sexual harm, the conditions are fulfilled, and we make those orders for 5 years.

2. Over a period of many years you downloaded a total of 5,189 images of which 1,855 were at Level 4 and 5 of the Copine scale. The Court has said repeatedly that, particularly in relation to those levels, these are not victimless crimes and must be treated seriously. We repeat what we said in the case of AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 at paragraph 25:- "One of the reasons for imposing firm penalties in relation to offences of this nature is that they are not victimless crimes. The images, if not pseudo-photographs, are of events which have in fact happened. In the case of the higher Copine levels in particular, a child will actually have been subject to the sexual abuse shown in the image, with all the suffering and damaging consequences which flow from that." And at paragraph 26:- "As the Court has said on many previous occasions, the gravamen of this offence is that the making and the distribution of indecent images fuels the demand for this kind of pornography and this in turn encourages the production of such images with consequent further abuse of young children." 3. The Court does proceed on the basis put forward by your Advocate, namely that you started looking at these images because you wanted to see if there were pictures of yourself, because you suffered abuse when you were young, as we have read in the reports, but that it soon developed into looking at the images for the usual reason, which is to obtain sexual satisfaction. We proceed on that basis but we think that it makes no difference to the level of sentence.

4. The leading case now is the Godson case and the facts of this offence fall within category 4 as laid down there, which suggests an initial point of 3 years' imprisonment. So we consider the aggravating features in this case. First there is the number of images, 1,855 atLevel 4 and 5 in particular. Secondly, there is the fact that you do have two previous convictions for sexual offences. We accept that they were a long time ago and were not of the most serious nature but, nevertheless, you have a conviction for indecent assault in 1972, for which you were given 1 month's imprisonment, and an offence of gross indecency in 1995, for which you received a similar sentence. You have many other convictions but not of this nature. However, you are assessed by the reports as being at high risk of sexual reoffending. In addition you have not been cooperative. You denied all involvement to start with; you sought, at one stage, to infer that it was your partner and your son who might have done it because they had access to your equipment. You also have used equipment to try and remove evidence of what you had done and to cover your tracks. All in all we consider that the aggravating features lift the initial point before mitigation to one of 5 years.

5. However, you have pleaded guilty; we have taken into account the most unfortunate background information that we have been given, and the fact that you are carer for your partner, and we have read her letter. Nevertheless we think that the Crown's conclusions make sufficient allowance for that mitigation.

6. The sentence on all the counts, except Count 7, is one of 3½ years, concurrent. On Count 7, which is the attempt, it is a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

7. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the equipment. Authorities R-v-Oliver [2003] 1 Cr. App. R.

28. Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 . AG-v-Bourke [2012] JRC 205 . Page Last Updated: 16 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-Oliver [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 28

Case cited

AG-v-Bourke [2012] JRC 205

Case cited

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.