Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC179

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th October, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Geoffrey Kevin Welland.

 

 

6 counts of:

Indecent assault

 

 

Age:     60

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

14 year old victim worked for defendant in his van on his ice cream rounds after school between July and September 1977.  Defendant then aged 34.  Assaults consisted or touching victim's vagina with his hands under her clothes.  No digital penetration.  On some occasions, defendant would masturbate to ejaculation on the floor whilst touching victim's vagina.

 

Details of Mitigation:

When victim made complaint in February 2003, defendant voluntarily attended police H.Q and candidly admitted his guilt.   Said that the victim had never led him on and he had taken advantage of her youth.  Remorse.  No similar previous conviction.  Assaults had taken place 26 years ago.   Defendant had overcome very difficult early life, having been placed in an orphanage, joining the army for ten years, thereafter being in full employment and latterly starting his own business.  Defendant had been married for 25 years and had two adult sons; his wife and sons wrote letters of support to the Court, along with 21 supportive references from various persons in all walks of life.  Counsel distinguished authorities in prosecution bundle and invited Court to find this was an exceptional case and impose a non custodial. Defendant at low risk of re-offending.

 

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction for larceny as a servant, £200, 1 year probation and 50 hours Community Service.

 

 

Conclusions:

12 month's imprisonment on each count concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

3 years' Probation and 240 hours Community Service to be completed within 12 months, together with usual conditions in such cases, as set out in Social Enquiry Report.

 

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J Bell for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        These assaults happened 26 years ago when the defendant was 34 and the victim was 14.  The defendant was selling ice creams from a van at the time and the young girl applied for work on his round in the evenings after school.  The assaults therefore took place in the van.  On the first occasion the defendant attempted to put his hand down her trousers and on 5 subsequent occasions during the 3 month summer period the defendant touched the victim's vagina with his hands by putting his hands under her clothes.  The Crown accepts there was no digital penetration in any of these assaults but he did sometimes masturbate himself in front of her. 

2.        The victim is now 40, she is married with children, she had told her parents at the time but was adamant that the matter should not be reported to the police, so it was not.  She also told her husband before they married.  She eventually went to the Police in February, 2003, as a result of which an investigation and this prosecution followed.

3.        The Court has repeatedly said that offences of this nature almost invariably attract imprisonment, and that is what the Crown has quite correctly moved for.  Mr Bell however has submitted that we should regard this as one of those exceptional cases.  He has listed many matters, not all of which I shall touch upon now, but he refers first to the guilty plea and more significantly to the fact that the defendant made immediate admissions.  Had he not done so it may well be that the prosecution would not have been brought because there would have been no corroboration of allegations which related to events so long ago.  He says that the defendant has been on remand in prison for a short period, and that he has no previous convictions of any relevance.  There is one minor dishonesty conviction, but nothing of this sort.

4.        He is now 60, he is married with two adult children, and there has been no repetition of this sort of conduct since these events back in 1977.  He points also to the defendant's background and it is clear from the contents of the Social Enquiry Report that this was a very difficult background, including being placed in an orphanage where he himself was sexually abused.  He then moved on many occasions, but in his adult life he has overcome these problems.  He has served in the Army for some 10 years, has always been regularly employed, and in recent times has started his own business which is going well.

5.        The fact that he has overcome these problems is supported by the many, many letters of support and references which the Court has received.  These show that this is a man who is well regarded by a wide selection of friends and acquaintances, and that he attracts both loyalty and support.  Mr Bell further points out that the Social Enquiry Report makes it clear that there is a low risk of re-offending.  This appears to have been an isolated series of offences committed over a 3 month period when he was 34, and before he married and had children.

6.        In essence Mr Bell submits that we should, as an act of mercy, regard this as an exceptional case and not impose imprisonment.  The Court has not found this easy; the policy is clear.  Where older men assault young children, or adolescents, they must almost invariably expect a prison sentence to reflect society's abhorrence of such offences.  But we are persuaded that for all the reasons which Mr Bell has very ably put forward, we can properly treat this as an exceptional case, not least having regard to the nature of the offences which, whilst undoubtedly extremely upsetting for the victim, are not at the higher end of the sort of cases which the Court very often has to deal with.  We are therefore not going to impose a prison sentence.

7.        Stand up.  You must however be punished and you must be punished at the maximum we can achieve without a prison sentence.  We therefore impose 240 hours Community Service, which will be a form of your making reparation to the community for what you have done.  That must be completed within 12 months, and we state that the sentence which we had in mind was that moved for by the Crown, namely 12 months.  We also, as suggested by the Social Enquiry Report, impose a Probation Order for 3 years so that, although they are of the view that you are at low risk of re-offending, nevertheless the issues which this case raises can be addressed in the Probation Order.

8.         Therefore, we impose a Probation Order of 3 years, and 240 hours Community Service.  We also impose the conditions referred to in the Social Enquiry Report, namely that the defendant has no contact, direct or indirect, with children or young persons under 16 without prior written permission of his Probation Officer; that he neither seeks nor undertakes employment or leisure activities in which there is contact with children and young persons under the age of 16; and that he resides and sleeps each night only where approved by the Probation Officer.  This of course would be expected to be his home.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): pp.292-6, 322.

A.G -v- Downs (1^st February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/30]

A.G -v- Foster (8^th June, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/131]

A.G -v- Holland (2^nd March, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/54]