J v AG 19-Oct-2020 [2020] JRC 219 (19 October 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] JRC 219
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Application to Lift Notification Requirements / Final Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Application to Lift Notification Requirements / Final Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantAttorney General
Respondent Counsel: Crown Advocate PedleyAmounts and remedies
- Notification Period Before Eligibility: 5
- Years Applicant Eligible for De Notification: 3
03
Procedural history
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.