Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/197

4 pages

 

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

11^th October, 2000

 

Before:    M.C. St J Birt, Deputy Bailiff,

                                                      Jurats de Veulle, Le Ruez, Quérée,

                                                      Le Brocq, Tibbo and  Georgelin.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Paul Renouf.

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 18^th August, 2000, following guilty pleas entered on 30^th June, 2000 to:

 

7 counts of indecent assault (count 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19 );

7 counts of gross indecency (count 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20);

7 counts of procuring an act of gross indecency (count 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21);

 

 

Age:      50.

 

Plea:     Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Sexual abuse on two boys over an eight year period including oral sex and procurement of oral sex - accused "groomed" boys whilst in locus parentis - one boy aged four when abuse began - lasting effect on victims.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Guilty plea; co-operation; last offence 1981; no offences since; good character; brought up family single handedly; references; conquered alcohol; remorse; no violence/threats.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

9/3/93: driving with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit: fined £100; disqualified for one year.

9/3/78: speeding: fined £20; licence endorsed.

Feb. 1968: speeding: fined £7.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:       2 years;                      Count 8:   4 years;                          Count 15:  5 years;

Count 2:       3 years;                      Count 9:   5 years;                          Count 16:  3 years;

Count 3        4 years;                      Count 10:  3 years;                         Count 17:  4 years;

Count 4:       2 years;                      Count 11:  4 years;                         Count 18:  5 years;

Count 5:       3 years;                      Count 12:  5 years;                         Count 19:  3 years;

Count 6:       4 years;                      Count 13:  3 years;                         Count 20:  4 years;

Count 7:       3 years;                      Count 14:  4 years;                         Count 21:  5 years;

 

All concurrent.   TOTAL:  5 Years.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court: Conclusions granted, with recommendation that Renouf undergo Sexual Offenders' Treatment Programme.

 

 

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate N.J. Chapman  for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.               This is a serious case.  The defendant ruined the childhood of two young boys.

 

2.               There are a number of aggravating features in the case.  There were two victims, and the assaults took place repeatedly over a long period;  in the case of victim A for some four years, and in B's case for some five years.  The assaults took place on a regular basis throughout those two periods.  The overall conduct of the defendant was spread over some eight years, between 1973 and 1981.  B in particular was very young.  The offences started when he was only 4 and continued until he was 9.

 

3.               There was a gross breach of trust.  In each case the defendant befriended the father of his victims and, as a result, was trusted to take the children out on his own.  In the case of A he moved in soon after the death of A's mother, when both A and his father were no doubt at their most vulnerable.  In the case of B the parents were separated and B was in the care of his father.

 

4.               As one would expect the defendant's conduct has had a lasting effect on these two boys.  The Court has had the benefit of victim impact statements prepared by the Children's Service in one case, and a statement to the police in the other.  It has to be said that the former is a preferable form of victim impact statement.  It is clear to the Court that both of these children have continued to suffer damage until reaching adulthood as a result of this defendant's conduct.

 

5.               The final aggravating factor is that the offending included the procuring of the commission by the two boys of oral sex on the defendant.  The Courts have repeatedly said that they take a particularly serious view of such behaviour.

 

6.               But there are, of course, mitigating factors to be weighed in the balance against those aggravating factors.  There is the guilty plea.  We accept that this defendant pleaded guilty from the outset and, as Mr Chapman said, was fully co-operative from the earliest stage.  The Court has often said that guilty pleas carry particular weight in cases like this as they spare the victims the trauma of having to give evidence in Court.

 

7.               Secondly, the last offence was as long ago as 1981;  that is to say some 19 years ago, and the defendant has committed no offences since then.  On the contrary, he is a man of hitherto good character, with no previous convictions  that are material. 

 

8.               During that nineteen year period he has brought up a family, largely single handed, and we have read with care the many references which have been handed up to us, not only from his family but also from others.  During that time he has also conquered the problem he had with alcohol.

 

9.               He has expressed remorse to the Court, and Mr Chapman also referred to the absence of any violence or threats in relation to these victims, although, in connection with a victim as young as 4, that is perhaps not as material as it might otherwise have been.

 

10.           The Court has considered the many reports before it with great care.  There is a recommendation from the Probation Service and from the Wolvercote Centre that this defendant would benefit from residential treatment there, and that this offers the best prospects of curing his paedophile tendencies.

 

11.           The Court has considered this carefully, but in view of the seriousness of the offences, and in view of the attitude of the defendant in not initially being willing to attend Wolvercote and only expressing himself as being willing to do so at the last moment, the Court does not feel able to go along with that recommendation.  There must therefore be a custodial sentence, and the Court has next considered the right length of sentence.

 

12.           We have been referred to a number of cases.  As has been said, it is always dangerous to refer too closely to other cases because the full facts which influence the Court cannot be ascertained from the reports.  The only case that we propose to mention is that of  A.G -v- Turner (21^st July, 2000) Jersey Unreported, which was referred to in particular by Mr Chapman, as being a case which could be said to be more serious, and in which case a sentence of four years was passed.

 

13.           It is quite clear to the Court that the key factor in that case was that the defendant was only 14 when he started offending, and that was very unusual.  Here the defendant did not start offending until he was 24; he was by then an adult.

 

14.           The seriousness of the offending in this case has caused the Court to consider very carefully increasing the Crown's conclusions.  However, the exceptional length of time since the offences were committed, coupled with the fact that during that time the defendant has not re-offended, has brought up his family single handed, and that his family have written and attended Court to attest to his character and his success as a father and a grandfather, has enabled us - just - to accept the Crown's conclusions.

 

15.           You are therefore sentenced as the Crown moves.  On Counts 1 and 4:  2 years' imprisonment.  On Counts 2 and 5:  3 years' imprisonment.  On Counts 3 and 6:  4 years' imprisonment.  On Counts 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19:  3 years' imprisonment.  On Counts 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20:  4 years' imprisonment.  On Counts 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21:  5 years' imprisonment.  All of those to run concurrently, making a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, and we urge that the Prison Service Sex Offenders Treatment Programme, referred to by both counsel, should be made available to the defendant  and we urge him to take advantage of it in prison.

 

Authorities

 

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey"  pp 97 - 1001.

Ibid: 1995-96 Noter Up: pp 41 - 3.

Ibid: 1996-97 Noter Up: pp 47 - 48

A.G -v- Bouhaire (17^th July, 1990) Jersey Unreported.

Mcintyre -v- A.G. (21^st January, 1999) Jersey Unreported CofA.

Wall -v- A.G. (9^th July, 1998) Jersey Unreported CofA.

A.G -v- Noel (29^th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Holland (8^th September, 2000) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Jouan (15^th March, 1996) Jersey Unreported

Jouan -v- A.G. (19^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported CofA.

A.G -v- Turner (21^st July, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

Current Sentencing Practice: Vol 1: C.6-2 F04: p.30621:

R -v- Matthews (1999) 1 Cr.App.R. (S).