Jersey Judgment

col2 search-result-title"> AG v Blampied 19 Apr 2024 [2024] JRC 092 (19 April 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the seriousness of the offences, the custody threshold is met, but in light of the defendant's guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, engagement with mental health services, and genuine remorse, a community-based sentence with probation, restrictive orders, and notification requirements is the most appropriate and proportionate response.

Court disposition

non-custodial sentence with community service and probation

Orders

  • 312 hours' community service as a direct alternative to 2 years' imprisonment
  • 2 year Probation Order with conditions including attendance at specified courses
  • Subject to notification requirements under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for a minimum of 5 years
  • Restrictive Orders under Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 4 years
  • Contribution to Crown's costs in the sum of £2,000 to be paid within 14 days
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the laptop containing indecent images

02

Material facts

Parties

Edward John Blampied

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Indecent Images Downloaded: 568
  • Number of Category a Images: 44
  • Community Service Hours Ordered: 312
  • Probation Order Duration (years): 2
  • Notification Requirements Duration (years): 5
  • Restrictive Orders Duration (years): 4
  • Contribution to Crown's Costs: GBP 2,000
  • Time Spent in Custody (weeks): 7

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, has no previous convictions, has engaged with mental health services, and has shown genuine remorse. The defence argued for a non-custodial sentence with rehabilitative measures.
Respondent
The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offences, the number and nature of the images, and the need for public protection, supporting the imposition of notification and restrictive orders.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091

    Custody threshold is met for serious offences involving indecent images of children, but alternatives may be considered based on mitigation and rehabilitation prospects.

  2. 02

    Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010

    Notification requirements and restrictive orders are appropriate where there is a risk of serious sexual harm and public protection is necessary.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the seriousness of the offences, the custody threshold is met, but in light of the defendant's guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, engagement with mental health services, and genuine remorse, a community-based sentence with probation, restrictive orders, and notification requirements is the most appropriate and proportionate response.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant's difficult childhood and mental health issues contributed to the offending.
  • The Probation Service's support and rehabilitative programmes are expected to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Court disposition

non-custodial sentence with community service and probation

  • 312 hours' community service as a direct alternative to 2 years' imprisonment
  • 2 year Probation Order with conditions including attendance at specified courses
  • Subject to notification requirements under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for a minimum of 5 years
  • Restrictive Orders under Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for 4 years
  • Contribution to Crown's costs in the sum of £2,000 to be paid within 14 days
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the laptop containing indecent images

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

[2024] JRC 092

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Edward John Blampied, you are 47 years old and fall to be sentenced for downloading 568 indecent images, 44 of which were in the most serious Category A. Police officers executed a warrant at your home on 14 September 2023. A number of electronic devices were seized. The images in question were found on a laptop and mainly consisted of indecent images of girls from the ages of approximately 3 upwards. There were 15 images of boys aged between 5 and 13 years. Most of the images showed children under the age of 10.

2. When you were first interviewed by the police you made no comment, but in your second police interview you admitted you had searched for and viewed indecent images of children, and you knew that it was illegal to do so. You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity when you appeared before the Magistrate's Court and accordingly you will receive full credit for those pleas.

3. Having regard to the case of Godson , the key factors for the Court to consider are as follows. (i) You are a 47 year old adult with no previous convictions. (ii) The number of images was significant but there is no evidence you distributed them to third parties. (iii) You appear to have made the images in the course of, at most, just under a year.

4. The Probation officer assesses you as being at medium risk of sexual reconviction and low risk of general reconviction. You have voluntarily engaged with the Adult Mental Health Services since you were arrested. We have listened with care to what has been said on your behalf. These offences are so serious that generally only a custodial sentence can be justified, and the custody threshold is met in your case too.

5. Stand up please. We direct that you are subject to the notification requirements under Article 5 of the 2010 Law for a minimum of 5 years. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to make the Restrictive Orders under Article 10 of the 2010 Law as we are satisfied that you pose a threat of serious sexual harm, and it is necessary to protect the public from such harm by making those orders. We make those orders for the period of 4 years in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Crown's conclusions. We order that you make a contribution to the Crown's costs in the sum of £2,000. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the laptop which was the device seized which contained the indecent images.

6. We have read both the Pre-Sentence Report and the report from Dr Briggs. You had a difficult childhood. You have suffered from poor mental health for many years which contributed to this offending. You were fully cooperative with the police. You fully accept that what you did was wrong and exhibit genuine remorse. Dr Briggs says in his report that you were asked whether the viewing of illegal images of children was wrong, and he reports that you were clear that it is. Dr Briggs says that he (that is you) said that not only is it wrong in the eyes of the law but it is also wrong because of the involvement and impact on the well-being of children. Dr Briggs says that you spoke of children's innocence and the need for them not to be objectified sexually; and that you understood that these images of children and the abuse image industry would affect child victims in the longer term with their adulthoods compromised.

7. You have now spent 7 weeks in custody and the Court has to determine, whilst ensuring that you are punished, whether the public interest lies in sending you back to La Moye to start a custodial sentence or to put in place a package of measures that will address your offending. We have concluded that the second approach is clearly the most appropriate in your case. You will serve 312 hours' community service, a direct alternative to 2 years' imprisonment.

8. You will be subject to a two year Probation Order with conditions that you attend such courses as directed. Those courses will include the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abuse programme for men convicted of sexual offences. That is a course that will last up to 18 months and it is designed to tackle attitudes towards abuse, and we have heard from the Probation officer in court today is believed to have a significant impact on the likelihood of reconviction.

9. The Probation Order will also ensure that you are subject to risk management, and that you have continued engagement with Adult Mental Health Services. The Probation officer has undertaken referrals to provide you with a safety net of support including a referral to "stop it now" via the Lucy Faithful Foundation which is a charity which supports those who have viewed or are at risk of internet-based offending; a referral to the Alcohol and Drug Service Relapse Prevention Service programme; a referral to Jersey Talking Therapies and a referral to the psychological assessment and therapy service for one to one therapy support to address your childhood trauma.

10. We hope that you take advantage of the support that you will be offered by the Probation Service and that you carry out the hours of community service which we have ordered that you perform. Any breach of the order is reserved to this Court, and any breach will result in a custodial sentence. Do you understand?

11. The costs are to be paid within 14 days. Authorities Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 . AG v Harris [2021] JRC 307 . AG v Matthews [2020] JRC 186A. AG v Salsac [2017] JRC 125 . R v Smith and Ors [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82 . Page Last Updated: 25 Apr 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map 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

AG v Harris [2021] JRC 307

Case cited

AG v Matthews [2020] JRC 186A

Case cited

AG v Salsac [2017] JRC 125

Case cited

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

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.