Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC044

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th March 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Raymond Eugene Duchesne

 

 

1 count of:

Demanding money with menaces.

 

 

Age:     49.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 The 67 year old victim ("X") had been a voluntary helper at Haut de la Garenne children's home during the 1960s.  At the relevant time the accused was resident at the home.  X would take children (including the accused) on outings.  The accused claimed to have been subjected by X to serious sexual abuse (including repeated acts of sodomy) over a number of years whilst aged between 6 and 10.

There were two widely different versions of events leading up to commission of the offence.

X alleged he had received a telephone call from the accused during the early months of 2003.  The accused had asked where he could acquire £10,000 to invest in a milk-round.  X had contacted finance houses and had passed information obtained to the accused.  The accused found the proposed arrangements too expensive.  He had asked X if he could lend him the money.  X had refused and the accused had become angry.  About a month later the accused had turned up on the doorstep of X's home.  He had apologised for his previous behaviour and had asked X for £5,000 (intimating he was now able to borrow the balance from his family).  When X refused to lend him the money the accused again became angry.  Loose threats were made on both occasions (not the subject of any charge).

The accused, however, claimed he had met X by accident whilst he (X) was walking his dog in town early in 2003.  X had initiated conversation regarding the alleged abuse years earlier.  There had been an altercation between them in the street.  The victim had subsequently telephoned the accused offering to pay him £5,000 if he would keep details of the abuse quiet.  This money had not been paid.

On both versions X heard nothing further from the accused in the months that followed.

There was no dispute as to the factual basis of the charge.

Later in the year the accused admitted sending three letters to the victim containing messages threatening to expose his alleged paedophile activities and a "jiffy" style envelope containing a video cassette on which was recorded an extract from a programme on paedophilia.  The messages were composed of letters cut from magazines.  The last letter contained instructions for the delivery of £5,000 by X to "the school gates".  The accused also admitted making two anonymous threatening telephone calls to X's home.

At the time allocated for delivery of the money the accused was seen by police driving past the gates of Haut de La Garenne twice.

A subsequent search of the accused's home address revealed a number of cut up magazines and a telephone book with the name, address and number of X circled.

The accused denied he was in financial difficulty.

X recorded he felt ill, sick, miserable and angry at the accusations made against him.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Allegations of serious sexual abuse by X (which the Court indicated it would assume were true for the purposes of sentencing) under active investigation by the States of Jersey police following a detailed statement of complaint made by the accused.  Remorse.  Co-operative during interview.  Full and frank admissions as to letters and other items sent and telephone calls made.  Fragile psychological condition (accused suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome following a serious accident at work).  Accused claimed that had the money been handed over he would have given it to a children's home.  No money was in fact received by the accused.  After X had failed to deliver the £5,000 to the gates of Haut de la Garenne the accused had not contacted him again.

 

Previous Convictions:

Bad record before Jersey Magistrate's Court, Royal Court and Magistrates' Courts in the United Kingdom stretching back to 1966.  Principally minor motoring and larceny offences but included some relatively minor dishonesty related convictions and a conviction for an assault on the police.

 

Conclusions:

2 years' imprisonment.

The Crown invited the Court to sentence the accused on the basis that (1) the allegations made by him against X may or may not be true; (2) because the allegations related to events which had allegedly occurred some 40 years ago any available mitigation which might be drawn upon in the context of the instant offending might possibly be stale; (3) as a matter of strict legality the allegations (whether or not true) had no bearing upon the propriety of the charge laid against the accused in the instant case.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

18 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.

Count could not proceed on the basis that the allegations may or may not be true (it being neither practical or possible to proceed in this way).  The Court would therefore sentence on the basis that the allegations of abuse were true.  Blackmail remains a very serious offence.  The accused had overcome a difficult background and could properly be described as a reformed character.  This was an exceptional case.

 

 

 

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Duchesne, blackmail is a very serious offence.  In every case to which we have been referred an immediate custodial sentence has been imposed.  In this case you attempted to obtain £5,000 from the victim by threatening to expose what you said he had done to you by way of sexual abuse when you were in care as a young child.

2.        The Crown say that we should proceed on the basis that the allegations of sexual abuse against Mr X may or may not be true.  We do not think that that is a practical or possible way of proceeding.  If these allegations are true then this is clearly a strong mitigating element in your favour, notwithstanding that blackmail remains a very serious offence.

3.        If, on the other hand, there was no such abuse, then this was an even more serious offence because you will have made false allegations against a person in order to obtain £5,000.  Although in some cases the making of a true allegation is more serious than a false one, in this particular case we think it works the other way round.

4.        It seems to us, therefore, that we have to proceed on one version or the other.  Your version is being investigated and is clearly not incredible.  We do not think it right to adjourn this case for a lengthy period pending a possible criminal prosecution against Mr X if there were to be one; therefore, we must proceed on your version of events. 

5.        Turning to the offence itself, it is against a background that you were abused for a number of years when you were perhaps aged 6 - 9 at a time when you were in care.  You had no contact with Mr X until you met him by chance last year.  There was an altercation.  Shortly afterwards he offered you £5,000 but then failed to pay it.  It was at that stage that you then determined to try and extract £5,000 from him which you did by sending three letters and a parcel and by making two telephone calls to him.  In the end a place was fixed for Mr X to pay you money but he did not do so because in fact he had gone to the police by then. 

6.        Nevertheless, it is fair to point out - as your advocate has done - that he did not pay you anything and notwithstanding that, you did nothing further for a full three weeks, until indeed you were arrested.  So it appears that you had let the matter drop.

7.        In terms of personal mitigation, you have your guilty plea which is of value, and your co-operation.  You have overcome what, on any view, is an extraordinarily difficult background.  Although you had a bad record in your youth, you have committed no offences - other than a minor motoring offence - since 1993, and we agree that you can properly be described as a reformed character.  You have overcome the difficult background that you suffered.  You have a good work record.  You are married now.  The Probation Report assesses you at being of low risk of re-offending.  You have the support not only of your wife, but also of your former wife who has written, and of your family and we have noted all the references and letters we have received.

8.        There is another important aspect of mitigation in this case.  You had an accident shortly before this offence and, although not seriously injured physically you suffered what is described as "a very severe post-traumatic stress disorder".  We have seen a report from your general practitioner and from Mr Hollywood, the consultant psychologist.  We can indeed quote from what Mr Hollywood said -

"Mr Duchesne's reactions at this time were undoubtedly a symptom of his disturbed psychological state.  Had the encounter (by which he means the encounter with the victim) occurred one year earlier the subsequent events would have been less likely to have occurred.....

...Mr Duchesne's behaviour, including his criminal behaviour, in relation to Mr X is best interpreted in the context of a psychologically fragile personality experiencing a recognised psychological/psychiatric condition, which impairs his normal inhibitions.  Whilst this does not exonerate his behaviour it is probably a significant mitigating factor."

9.        We agree.  We think there is no doubt that the fact that you were suffering from post traumatic stress disorder to a serious degree undoubtedly meant that when you encountered the victim you reacted in a way that you might well not have reacted otherwise.

10.      We said earlier blackmail is a serious offence.  Your counsel has suggested the possibility of community service.  An offence of blackmail is too serious for that.  It must therefore be a sentence of imprisonment and we think - taking account of all the circumstances - that a little bit more can be allowed than the Crown has suggested.  We think the correct prison sentence is one of 18 months.  The question then is whether we can suspend it.  We have concluded that this is truly an exceptional case when one puts together the whole background and all the circumstances we have described; and in the circumstances we think that we can - just - agree to suspending the sentence. 

11.      The sentence therefore is one of 18 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years.  This means you will not go to prison, unless you commit a further offence within the next 2 years.  If you do then not only will you be punished for whatever offence you commit then, but you will in addition have to serve the eighteen months we have imposed today.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): p.256.

A.G. -v- Sangster & Anor (14^th December 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/247A].

Current Sentencing Practice: Part B6-6: Blackmail.

R -v- Read (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 240.

R -v- Christie (1990) 12 Cr. App. R. (S) 540.

R -v- Daniels (2002) 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 99 at 443.

R -v- Davies (2004) 1 Cr. App. R (S) 31 at 209

R -v- Hollingworth & Yates (1994) 15 Cr. App. R. (S) 258.

R -v- Stone (1989) Cr. App. R. (S) 176.

Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences) (Jersey) Law 2003: Article 2.