E v AG (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 056 (26 February 2025)

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to a single offence of indecent assault on a teenage girl and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was made subject to the notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 ("the Law") and the period which the Court ordered must elapse before he could apply to have the requirements lifted has now expired. Accordingly he now applies for the notification requirement to be removed.

2. The Court has had the benefit of two detailed reports, the first is from the Offender Management Unit (the "OMU") of the States of Jersey Police, and the second is from the Probation Service.

3. The first question we have had to decide is whether the Applicant has persuaded us that we should sit in private. The general rule of course is that courts sit in public. We have been reminded of the principles laid down in the leading cases of A v AG [2020] JRC 004 and S v AG [2023] JRC 140.

4. In this case the OMU report observes that if the hearing is in public, it could cause the Applicant to destabilise and lose his social support network and possibly his employment. It would also cause disproportionate damage and trauma to his wife who has been a consistent support to him.

5. The OMU also emphasises the importance of concentrating their resources on high risk offenders and not having to devote scarce resources to managing low risk offenders. The report states that if hearings are held in public with consequent publicity, there will be few applications for removal of notification requirements and this would clearly be undesirable.

6. The application to sit in private was not opposed by the Attorney General, and we considered that we should so sit for the reasons set out in the OMU report.

7. So turning to the merits of the application, we remind ourselves of the terms of Article 5(6) of the Law which is in the following terms: The court must not make the order applied for under paragraph (5) unless it is satisfied that the risk of sexual harm to the public, or to any particular person or persons, that the person subject to the notification requirements of this Law poses by virtue of the likelihood of re-offending does not justify the person's being subject to those requirements.

8. As we have just said, we have had detailed reports from both the OMU and the Probation Service, and we would like to thank both of them for the detailed and helpful reports. They both support the application, furthermore the Attorney General does not oppose the application.

9. Having regard to all the material before us, we are satisfied that the risk of sexual harm to the public that the Applicant poses by virtue of the likelihood of reoffending does not justify his remaining subject to the notification requirements.

10. We would summarise the key matters which have led us to this conclusion as follows:- (i) The Applicant has been routinely assessed using the SAO7 Stable Risk Assessment and he has been assessed as being at low risk of sexual reoffending. (ii) The offence was committed over 20 years ago and there is no evidence or intelligence of any offenses since then. (iii) He married after the offending but before it came to light many years later. His wife, whilst not condoning his offence, has been and remains very supportive. In addition he has a limited but supportive network of friends who encourage a pro-social lifestyle. (iv) Since his release from his prison sentence he has been regularly employed and his current employers have provided a reference. (v) He has been fully engaged with the supervision process, which is important. According to the OMU report he has made a number of positive changes in several areas of his life, and he has co-operated at all meetings and assessments.

11. So, putting all these matters together and having regard to the other contents of the reports, we are satisfied that the risk of the Applicant reoffending does not justify his remaining subject to the notification requirements and accordingly we order that he be discharged from those requirements. Authorities Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. A v AG [2020] JRC 004. S v AG [2023] JRC 140. Page Last Updated: 27 Mar 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII