Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC225

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3^rd December, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Steven John Ollivier

 

2 counts of:

indecent assault (count 1, 2)

 

Breach of 1 year Probation Order made in Magistrate's Court on 27^th July, 2002 following a guilty plea to 1 count of resisting arrest and 1 count of being drunk and disorderly.

 

Age:    

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach of Probation Order admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

The Defendant moved into a flat occupied by a friend which was virtually "open house" for a group of young girls and boys in their early teens.  Count 1 related to an incident when the Defendant assaulted a girl aged 14 who was sitting in a chair in the flat at the time.  He grabbed her legs tightly, just above the knees, lifted them, then pressed them down onto her chest and simulated having sexual intercourse with her.  She tried to push him off but was unable to do so.  The Defendant continued with the assault despite the victim complaining that she could not breathe.  Both the Defendant and the victim were fully clothed and neither had been drinking.  Count 2 related to an incident when the Defendant had been, in his words, "play fighting" with a 13 year old girl on the bed of the Defendant's flat-mate.  He claimed that he had been lying on top of the girl and had given her a love-bite on the neck.  The girl remembered nothing of the incident, having consumed alcohol.  The offences placed the Defendant in breach of a Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court for offences of malicious damage and common assault.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  In relation to count 2 the Defendant effectively wrote his own indictment given that the girl had no recollection of how she had received the love-bite.  No other mitigation.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

At the age of 18 fined for having sex with a 13 year old girl, two year later he was jailed for sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl and 5 years later he was jailed for a total of 6 years for a series of sexual offences against an ex-girlfriend, including rape, indecent assault and gross indecency.  Social Enquiry and psychiatric reports indicated that the Defendant had rejected offers of therapeutic help in respect of his sexual preferences.  He was assessed as being at a very low risk of re-offending.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment
	Probation Order to be discharged

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment
	Probation Order to be discharged

 

The Court disagreed with the Crown's conclusion that the offence in respect of count 2 was at the upper end of the band of sentences for indecent assault.

 

 

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.M. Santos Costa for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Ollivier, you assaulted two young girls of thirteen and fourteen respectively.  They were not the most serious of assaults but that against Miss J must have been very frightening for her.  Any such assaults are capable of causing continuing problems for young children and it is not your first such assault.  You have been convicted of sexual offences on several occasions and have served terms of imprisonment.  You have refused any form of treatment.  Furthermore, on this occasion, you moved to live at an address where you knew that young girls might be found and you deliberately did not tell your probation officer because you knew she would not consent.  In truth there is very little mitigation in this case other than your plea of guilty and the fact that you wrote your own indictment in relation to count 2.  It is clear to us that you remain a risk to young women.  The only matter which has caused us difficulty is that which has been focused on by your counsel, Mr Santos Costa.  He says that the Crown's conclusions are too high for what you actually did on this occasion.  We agree that the Court can only sentence you for what you did.  The Crown in its summary said that the assault on Miss J was at the upper end of the scale.  It also said that an assault of the type on Miss J was more serious than an assault which included the touching of the breast or the bottom.  As to the first point, namely that it is at the upper end of the scale, we have to say that we disagree.  We can think of many assaults which were much, much more serious than this.  Secondly, as to whether or not we say that it is less serious than an assault which involves the touching of a breast or bottom, in this case we do not say that it is more serious.  As Mr Santos Costa pointed out, this was an assault carried out in the presence of several other young people; there were, at least, two other teenage girls and the victim's 15 year old brother present in the same room.  All in all, we conclude that the basis of the Crown's conclusions is one with which we cannot agree and therefore we think that there is something in Mr Santos Costa's submission that the conclusions were too high for the particular nature of this assault.  In the circumstances we think the right sentence on count 1 is two years' imprisonment and on count 2 nine months' imprisonment concurrent making a total of two years imprisonment.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Brewster (5^th January 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/3]

Dykes -v- A.G. [1999] JLR 144

A.G. -v- Barrett (9^th October 1992) Jersey Unreported; [1992/162]

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): pp. 292-324.