Jersey Judgment

J v AG 19-Oct-2020 [2020] JRC 219 (19 October 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The applicant is assessed as low risk, has responded positively to supervision and treatment, and the risk to the public does not justify continued notification requirements.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Notification requirements lifted

02

Material facts

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent Counsel: Crown Advocate Pedley

Amounts and remedies

  • Notification Period Before Eligibility: 5
  • Years Applicant Eligible for De Notification: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application to Lift Notification Requirements / Final Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the applicant should remain subject to sex offender notification requirements

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant has served the sentence, is assessed as low risk of sexual reconviction, has responded positively to supervision, completed treatment, and has made progress in problem solving.
Respondent
The application is not opposed; the applicant's frankness and positive engagement with agencies are noted.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    A v AG [2020] JRC 004

    Application for lifting notification requirements may be heard in private and must consider risk to public or individuals.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The applicant is assessed as low risk, has responded positively to supervision and treatment, and the risk to the public does not justify continued notification requirements.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicant's emotional stability and realistic plans for the future after job loss demonstrate progress.

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Notification requirements lifted

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

[2020] JRC 219

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. Applying the principles helpfully set out in the case of A v AG [2020] JRC 004 we have agreed to hear this application for the notification requirements to be lifted, in private.

2. The applicant was convicted for the possession of indecent images of children and the Court ordered that 5 years should elapse before the applicant could apply to have the notification requirements lifted. Restraining orders were imposed for the same period. The applicant has served the sentence imposed and has been eligible to have the requirements lifted for over 3 years now.

3. The application is not opposed by the Attorney General and Crown Advocate Pedley has referred to the frankness of the admissions the applicant made when the police first searched the applicant's home, which Crown Advocate Pedley said were characteristic of his dealings with the police and other agencies.

4. The police report and the de-notification report both assess the applicant as being at a low risk of sexual reconviction and the applicant scored in the low range on the assessment tools. There have been some issues since the applicant's release which have been addressed appropriately but we note in particular two things: (i) The applicant's response to supervision after arrest has been described as very positive. The applicant has been open about the applicant's sexual interests, difficulties and offending and has worked through the Sex Offender Treatment Program under the guidance of Dr Briggs. (ii) The progress made by the applicant on problem solving was apparent from the applicant's recent job loss after someone contacted the applicant's employer informing them of the conviction. The applicant did not allow this to derail the applicant's emotional stability and realistic and achievable plans for the future.

5. We are therefore persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the risk to the public or to particular individuals does not justify the applicant remaining subject to the notification requirements and the application is therefore granted. Authorities A v AG [2020] JRC 004 Page Last Updated: 26 Nov 2020 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.

A v AG [2020] JRC 004

Case cited

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.