ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
10 December 1998
Before: F C Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Potter and de Veulle
Magistrates Court Appeal
Keith McKenzie Snedden
John Anthony Turner
-v-
AG
Appeal against a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment passed on 2 November 1998, following guilty pleas to 1 count of committing an act of gross indecency.
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; fine of £1,000 substituted for each appellant.
Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate
Advocate Mrs S A Pearmain for K M Snedden
Advocate N J Chapman for J A Turner
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Mrs Pearmain, we have had regard to two recent cases in the Magistrates Court both of attempts to commit acts of gross indecency in public toilets and both resulted in fines being imposed.
Although this was not an attempt but a completed act of gross indecency we have no indication that the sentencing policy of the Magistrates Court is any different for offences commonly known as "cottaging" in public toilets.
Mr Chapman has shown us examples from the English Courts of Appeal where fines are deemed to be appropriate and we need to repeat the judgment of Lawton LJ in the case of R -v- Morgan & Dockerty ( C.S.P.: B4-92001: p.23001) because the words used there are absolutely applicable to cases of this nature in Jersey:
" The problem for the Court is how it should approach this class of offence. There was a time not so many years ago when this kind of conduct was almost invariably dealt with by prison sentences. The sentencing policy in relation to first offenders - and I stress first offenders - has now changed. In general first offenders using public lavatories and behaving in this sort of way in them do not get sent to prison. They are generally fined. On occasions they may be put on probation or some other non-custodial order is made.
Conduct of this kind in public conveniences is a nuisance to the public. It is distasteful. It makes members of the public reluctant to use those conveniences. Courts by their sentences have got to do their best to stop this kind of conduct. Experience has shown that for the majority of first offenders an appearance before the court, coupled with a monetary penalty, stops any repetition of the offence, at least in public lavatories. On the other hand occasionally those who are convicted persist in this kind of behaviour and when they do, prison sentences may be appropriate."
In this case the Crown does not strongly oppose the appeal and whilst in no way criticising the learned Magistrate in a difficult decision, we think that in this case justice is served appropriately by a fine of £1,000 on each appellant, or two months’ imprisonment in default of payment, and they will be granted a period of two weeks in which to pay.
Authorities
Clayton and Restrepo (1981) Cr.App.R.(S) 67
CSP: B4-92001; P.23001: R - v- Morgan & Dockerty
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: p.101