Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC234

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

19^th December 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John William Robins

 

2 counts of:

Indecent assault (counts 1 and 4)

 

[On 4^th November 2003, the Crown accepted Not Guilty pleas to counts 2 and 3 of the indictment.]

 

Age:     27.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Count 1:  On 13^th April, 2003, Robins and his wife were looking after their niece (G) and her cousin (C) for the day.  The girls were taken to the swimming pools.  Robins' wife was in the small pool with C whilst Robins offered to help G to swim in the larger pool.  At one point Robins and G were facing one another and Robins touched G indecently by putting his hand over her bikini bottoms over the area of the vagina.  G told Robins not to touch her and tired to push him away.

Count 4:  Later that same day all four returned to Robins' flat.  Robin's wife busied herself in the bedroom.  G sat in the lounge with Robins whilst C was going back and forth from the lounge to the bedroom.  Every time C left the room Robins would either move seats to be sat beside G, or if already beside her would shift his position closer to her.  Whenever C returned to the room Robins would re-position himself.  During one such period when C was absent from the lounge Robins lifted up G's T shirt and kissed her right breast.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, residual youth, previous good character, assaults took place over a short period of time, there was no grooming premeditation, violent or digital penetration, Robins' wife suffered from spina bifida and kidney problems, Robins was her registered "carer".  Reference was made to extracts from the Current Sentencing Practice indicating that the sentencing Court may take into account the effect of the sentence on the offender's dependant if it would have the effect of "unusual hardship" as a result of his imprisonment.

 

Previous Convictions:

Three previous convictions for minor motoring offences.

 

Conclusions:

3 years' Probation Order; 240 hours' Community Service Order. (Equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment )

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Robins betrayed the trust of his twelve year old niece.  Court was aware that the Crown had accepted that the incidents were at the lower end of the scale of indecent assault.  The general policy of the Court was absolutely clear, prison was almost invariably appropriate, however, in this instance the Crown had unusually moved for a non custodial sentence.  Due to the mitigating factors this case was exceptional and the Court had just been persuaded that it could agree with the Crown's conclusions which were accordingly granted.

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You betrayed the trust placed in you by indecently assaulting your 12 year old niece.  The Crown has accepted that what you actually did was towards the lower end of the scale in cases of indecent assault.  One of them was touching in the area of the vagina over clothing.  But it is clear from the evidence that these were extremely upsetting incidents for your niece and this is not at all surprising.

2.        The general policy of the Court is absolutely clear.  When an older man indecently assaults a young girl or an adolescent girl a prison sentence is almost invariably imposed in order to reflect society's abhorrence at such offences.

3.        Unusually the Crown has moved in this case for a non-custodial sentence and has suggested community service and probation.  The Court has had to consider very carefully whether it can agree with those conclusions.

4.        Mr Bell has put forward a strong case in mitigation.  He has referred to your guilty plea, to the fact that you have no previous convictions, for these are wholly out of character, and we have been provided with references which show the good side of you. 

5.        Sadly this is quite often the case, and indeed we have had to deal with another defendant this morning where that was the position.  That, of itself, would not have been enough to convince us to agree with the Crown.  However, there are two additional factors in this case.  The first is the Psychological Report and the background report, which comment upon your intellectual abilities and make it clear that you suffer considerably from uncertainty and confusion on many matters.  The suggestion is that these could be helped by probation whereas they would be damaged by prison.

6.        The second matter is the illness of your wife.  She suffers sadly from spina bifida and she has also undergone a kidney transplant.  She herself has difficulties in managing her life and this means that she is not competent to look after herself.  She depends on you for her care and, in particular, for the medication. 

7.        It is clear from the authorities to which Mr Bell referred us that the Court can take into account the effect of a prison sentence on an offender's dependants where they would be subject to unusual hardship.  We are satisfied that that would be the case in relation to your wife.

8.        We have had to weigh all of this in the balance and the Court has found it a difficult exercise.  Nevertheless, it has - just - been persuaded that because of the combination of all the matters that I have described it can agree with the Crown's conclusions in this case.

9.        The sentence, therefore, is that you will undergo community service for 240 hours.  We say that the prison sentence we would have had in mind would have been 18 months.  You are also to be placed on probation for 3 years with the three conditions recommended in the report - namely, that you have no contact direct or indirect with children or young persons under 16 without the prior written permission of your probation officer.

10.      Secondly, you do not seek or undertake employment or leisure activities in which there is contact with children and young persons under 16.

11.      Thirdly, that you reside and sleep each night only where approved by your probation officer; this is likely to be your home.

12.      You have been extremely fortunate.  It is now up to you and we hope very much that you will learn from this and never re-offend.  If you break any of the conditions of this probation, or if you do re-offend, then you will certainly go to prison.

Authorities

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

AG -v- Welland [2003] JRC 179.

AG -v- Holland (8^th September 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/178].

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

Current Sentencing Practice: C4 - 2B:

R -v- Crompton (22^nd July 1974): C4 - 2B01.

R -v- Renker (29^th June 1976): C4 - 2B02.

R -v- Halth (1982) 4 Cr.App. R.(S).178.

R -v- Franklyn (1981) 3 Cr. App. R (S) 65.