The Attorney General v Alan Geoffrey Falle

Superior Number Sentencing - reasons for the sentence [2026]JRC167 Royal Court (Samedi) 16 June 2026 Before : M. H. Temple, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Dulake, Cornish, Le Heuzé, Gardener and Ramsden The Attorney General -v- Alan Geoffrey Falle Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate. Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. On 17 March 2026 the Defendant was sentenced in relation to an indictment containing 12 counts of abuse of trust by a sexual act against a person aged 16 or 17, contrary to Article 18(1) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018 (the “2018 Law”). At the hearing the Court gave its sentence and now provides its reasons.

2. The offences occurred over approximately an 8-month period between 12 May 2019 and 31 December 2019. They occurred at a time when the victim was 17 years old and a pupil at a Jersey secondary school. The Defendant was one of her teachers until the summer of 2019 when he joined another secondary school in Jersey.

3. At the time, the Defendant was approximately 28 to 29 years old. All the offences occurred at the Defendant’s home address.

4. The particulars of the counts ranged from kissing the victim on the lips, sexual touching, oral sex, penetration of the victim’s vagina with the Defendant’s penis (including ejaculation) and use of a sexual device on the victim’s vaginal area.

5. In 2017, prior to the offences and when the victim was aged 15, the victim was suffering from a generic anxiety disorder and had a phobia of vomiting. The victim’s grandfather had died on 26 June 2017 and the following day whilst at school the victim broke down into tears on her way to a class. The Defendant saw that the victim was upset and stopped to talk to her, telling her that he was there if she wanted to talk about anything. From this point there was an increasing degree of confiding by the victim in the Defendant. This progressed from a weekly meeting to the victim staying behind at school to study so that she could see the Defendant, and then to frequent email contact throughout 2018, often outside school hours and during school holidays.

6. In March 2019, the Defendant informed the victim that he was moving to a different school which caused the victim to become upset. The Defendant then provided the victim with his personal email address, and the Defendant and the victim began exchanging emails on their personal email addresses. The Defendant accepted that the provision of his personal email address was the turning point which led to his offending.

7. During the school Easter holidays in April 2019, their communication moved to Snapchat in which messages are automatically deleted within 24 hours, and the communications became flirtatious. Then on 12 May 2019, the victim visited the Defendant at his home address at which point the offending commenced. At this time the victim was a pupil at the school where the Defendant was still a teacher.

8. In June 2019, the Defendant and the victim had full sexual intercourse and did not use contraception, causing the victim to attend a sexual health clinic and obtain emergency contraception the following day. This was after a safeguarding investigation had commenced concerning the Defendant. At the end of May 2019, the victim had made an inadvertent disclosure to a Youth Service counsellor that the Defendant had given her his personal email address in case she needed to speak with him, which triggered the safeguarding investigation.

9. Despite the safeguarding investigation, the Defendant remained in contact with the victim. At the Defendant’s request, the victim deleted all the personal emails between them on her personal email account, and he did the same for his personal email account. Thus, no evidence of inappropriate private correspondence was found on the victim’s and the Defendant’s devices. This meant that when an HR hearing occurred in July 2019, the investigators were unaware of the extent, content and timing of the personal emails and other messages between the Defendant and the victim. For the purposes of that HR hearing, the Defendant provided a reflective statement in which he stated that he was trying to be there for the victim as a teacher, helping to support her with confidence and anxiety issues.

10. The conclusion of the safeguarding investigation (based only on emails on the Defendant’s school email account) was that the Defendant had exchanged emails with the victim and that the emails were inappropriately friendly. The Defendant was given a warning and the suspension on him as a teacher was lifted. Despite this formal warning in July 2019, the Defendant continued the sexual relationship with the victim who was still 17 years old.

11. The sexual relationship was continuing when the victim turned 18 years old in February 2020, at which point further offending was not possible under the provisions of Article 18(1) of the 2018 Law. Just after the victim’s 18th birthday, the victim fell pregnant accidentally following unprotected sex with the Defendant. She subsequently had an abortion.

12. In 2024 the victim realised that there had been an abuse of trust as the Defendant had been her teacher. The victim contacted the States of Jersey Police in May 2024 by letter setting out details of her sexual relationship with the Defendant.

13. The Defendant was interviewed by the police in June 2024 but denied a sexual relationship and denied that the victim had even visited his address. He gave ‘no comment’ answers when he was interviewed by the police again on 14 November 2025.

14. The Defendant was then charged, first appeared in the Magistrate’s Court on 26 November 2025 and entered guilty pleas to all the charges for which he was subsequently indicted, following which he was remanded in custody. Law and authorities 15. The maximum sentence for abuse of trust by a sexual act against a person aged 16 of 17 contrary to Article 18(1) of the 2018 Law is 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine. There are no guidelines cases for offences of this type. The Crown has identified one other case involving a breach of trust which was sentenced in the Magistrate’s Court in 2019. The Defendant in that case had entered a guilty plea to inciting sexual activity with inappropriate messages being sent during a 3-month period, and he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

16. As regards the approach to sentence, the Court adopted the approach taken in AG v Roberts [2025] JRC 081 as upheld by the Court of Appeal in Roberts v AG [2025] JCA 222. Whilst the approach in Roberts was in the context of sentencing for rape, it has been subsequently extended not only in relation to a range of sexual offences in Jersey, but also to sexual offences committed against both younger children and teenagers.

17. Applying the harm factors set out in Schedule 1 of Roberts, the Court identified two harm factors: firstly, penetration of the victim’s vagina and anus; and secondly severe psychological harm. As regards the latter, the Court noted in full the contents of the victim’s powerful personal statement (“VPS”). This set out in the victim’s own words the profound effect of the Defendant’s actions on the victim, which still affected her at the time of the sentencing. The Court also carefully considered the contents of a Victim Impact Report (“VIR”) prepared by Dr James Connor, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, in which Dr Connor concluded that severe psychological harm had been caused to the victim. Whilst some of the harm was caused by the abortion which occurred after the offending when the victim had turned 18, the Court considered that much of the harm described in the report was directly linked to the offending.

18. As regards culpability, the Court considered that that the Defendant’s conduct involved a significant degree of planning and that there was specific targeting of a vulnerable child. Whilst the Court considered the Defendant’s conduct prior to him providing her with his personal email address was inappropriate, it accepted Advocate Dale’s submission that such conduct was not grooming of the victim. It also agreed with Advocate Dale that the consumption of alcohol by the Defendant on one occasion was not an aggravating factor on the facts of this case.

19. Nevertheless, overall the Court viewed this as very serious offending and considered that the initial starting point for sentence was 5 years’ imprisonment, being the maximum sentence for this offence. This was on the basis that the Court disagreed with the Crown that consecutive sentences were appropriate.

20. As regards aggravating factors, the Court considered that the following were aggravating factors: ejaculation; steps taken to prevent the victim from reporting the relationship to the internal investigation, including concealing and deleting evidence; and the fact that the Defendant ignored an express warning from his professional body following the HR hearing in July 2019 by continuing to offend.

21. As regards mitigation, the Court gave the Defendant full credit for his early guilty pleas which were entered unconditionally with no basis of plea. The plea was valuable to the victim in this case. It took into account the fact that the sexual relationship between the Defendant and the victim was consensual but gave little credit for this as it considered that the essence of the offences was abuse of trust rather than lack of consent.

22. Despite comments in the Pre-Sentence Report, the Court accepted Advocate Dale’s submissions at the hearing and the Defendant’s letter of remorse showed that the Defendant was genuinely remorseful and sorry for these offences. Indeed, his remorse was extreme in that he had previously attempted suicide and he intended not to stay alive at the end of his sentence. The Defendant had not previously seen the contents of the VPS and the VIR until the day before the sentencing hearing, and he was deeply upset by them as he previously had not fully realised the severe impact on the victim.

23. The Court noted that the Defendant was assessed as presenting a low risk of both general and sexual re-conviction and that the Defendant had no previous convictions. It accepted the profound effects on the Defendant including the loss of his career, albeit that these were the inevitable consequence of his own actions in deciding to commence and continue the offending. In addition to his lack of previous convictions, the Court also noted the numerous character references provided on his behalf and the Defendant’s struggles with his own mental health prior to the offending.

24. The Court accepted Advocate Dale’s submission that the consecutive sentences moved for by the Crown were inappropriate in this case. The Court viewed the offending as one continuing abusive relationship. It also accepted that it should disregard any offending after the victim turned 18, including the fact and effect on the victim of the abortion. The Court also accepted that the Defendant did not set out to groom the victim and that his initial intentions were to try to help her. Sentence 25. Overall, the Court considered that, whilst this was serious offending by a teacher on a pupil, the sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment moved for by the prosecution should be significantly reduced. Whilst it gave the Defendant a full one third discount for his guilty pleas, it considered that the other mitigating factors were counterbalanced by the aggravating factors summarised above.

26. The Court increased the sentences on Counts 2 to 5 from those moved by the Crown on the basis that these did not adequately reflect the offending and on the basis that all sentences would be concurrent. It considered that the same sentence should be passed for counts where there was penetration – i.e. Counts 6 to 12. It also considered the principle of totality and stepped back to view the sentence as a whole in the way suggested in the case of AG v Roberts [2025] JRC 081.

27. Taking into account all of the above, the Court decided that the minimum total sentence that it could impose was a sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. The Court accepted that this sentence was at the maximum limit for an offence where the Defendant had entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity but considered that the sentence was appropriate in this case given the seriousness of the Defendant’s offending against a vulnerable pupil over an 8 month period featuring multiple counts involving penetration, the deliberate destruction of evidence and misleading of the HR investigation.

28. The Court’s sentences on each of the counts, all of which were to be served concurrently, were as follows: (i) Count 1: 6 months’ imprisonment; (ii) Count 2: 6 months’ imprisonment; (iii) Count 3: 12 months’ imprisonment; (iv) Count 4: 18 months’ imprisonment; (v) Count 5: 18 months’ imprisonment; (vi) Count 6: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (vii) Count 7: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (viii) Count 8: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (ix) Count 9: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (x) Count 10: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (xi) Count 11: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; (xii) Count 12: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

29. As regards the period that the Defendant will be subject to the notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, the Court ordered that the period before the Defendant can apply to have the notification requirements disapplied was 7 years from the date of the sentencing hearing, which was agreed by Advocate Dale.

30. Finally, the Court made no order for costs given the Defendant’s financial circumstances. Authorities Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018. AG v Roberts [2025] JRC 081. Roberts v AG [2025] JCA 222. Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.