D v AG (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 037 (4 February 2025)

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. The Applicant is applying under Article 5(5) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 ("the Law") for an order that he no longer be subject to the notification requirements under Article 3 of that Law.

2. The Applicant pleaded guilty to offences of making indecent images of children. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and made subject to a restraining order for 5 years which mainly dealt with his computer. The Court also ordered that 5 years should elapse before he could apply for termination of the notification requirements. That period expired several years ago.

3. The first issue we have had to consider is whether this application should be heard in private. The burden rests on the Applicant to show that it should be. The relevant considerations when deciding this issue have been set out in a number of cases including A v AG [2020] JRC 004, S v AG [2023] JRC 140 and V v AG [2024] JRC 044 . We have considered what was said in those cases and have applied the principles elaborated in those cases. We have no hesitation in concluding this application should be heard in private. As we shall explain in a moment the Applicant has made excellent progress, is at low risk of reoffending and is extremely concerned that renewed publicity might set back that progress and there would be renewed adverse consequences for his family and his employer.

4. It appears from the report of the Offender Management Unit (the "OMU") of the States of Jersey Police that the OMU has been encouraging the Applicant to apply for denotification for some time, but he has been reluctant to do so in case he was placed back in the public eye should the hearing take place in public.

5. As stated in the authorities which we have mentioned, it is important for the work of the OMU that offenders who do not need to remain subject to the notification requirements should not be deterred from applying for release by the threat of renewed publicity. The OMU needs to concentrate its resources on those offenders where the notification requirements are important as a public safeguard.

6. In the present case the OMU, the Probation Service and the Attorney General all support the application being heard in private. In our judgment they are right to do so and accordingly we ordered that the matter be heard in private.

7. Turning to the merits, the offence in this case consisted of the Applicant downloading indecent images of children. We have received detailed reports from the OMU and from the Probation Service as well as an affidavit from the Applicant. We would summarise the key findings from the evidence before us as follows:- (i) Using the Stable and Acute 2007 Risk Assessment Tool the Applicant is assessed as being at low risk of reconviction and low risk of causing sexual harm, and he has been assessed regularly over recent years. (ii) Since the Applicant's release from prison, the OMU have regularly paid random visits to his home. The Applicant complied fully with the restraining order concerning his computer and indeed has voluntarily provided it for examination even after the expiry of the restraining order which obliged him to so provide it. (iii) Since his offending he has met and married his wife who is aware of his conviction. She is said to be very supportive, and he has a supportive pro-social network. (iv) He has been regularly employed since his release and he and his wife have bought a home together. (v) He has undertaken therapeutic treatment which he has found beneficial. (vi) There is no evidence of any continued interest in indecent images of children.

8. Article 5(6) provides that the Court must not make an order discharging the notification requirements unless satisfied that the risk of sexual harm to the public that the person concerned poses by virtue of the likelihood of reoffending does not justify the person being subject to the notifications requirements. Putting that in simpler language, the Applicant must satisfy the Court to the civil standard that the risk of his committing further sexual offending, which would of course include possessing indecent images of children or making such images, can be discounted to the extent that the imposition of the notification requirements is unjustified.

9. As already stated, both the OMU and the Probation Service are of the view that the notification requirements are no longer justified in this case. The Attorney General has also supported the application on that ground.

10. For the reasons we have summarised, which are set out in more detail in the helpful reports we have received, we agree.

11. Accordingly, we make an order under Article 5(5) of the Law that the Applicant is no longer subject to the notification requirements. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. A v AG [2020] JRC 004. S v AG [2023] JRC 140. V v AG [2024] JRC 044 . Page Last Updated: 19 Feb 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII