Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC217

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

10^th December 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Trevor Michael Rowe

 

1 count of:	Possession of indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2 (1)(b) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Distribution of indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2 (1)(c) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of indecent photographs of children, with a view to their being distributed, contrary to Article 2 (1)(d) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. (Count 3).

 

Age:     21.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Some 4600 images, of which approximately 40% were duplications, plus 90 video clips stored by Rowe on his computer.  Images spanned all five categories set down by Rose L.J. in Oliver Hartrey and Baldwin.  1229 images had been uploaded to remote computers via file sharing software programmes including a complete zip file of 18 photos uploaded to 4 different users.  A larger amount of images were made available for distribution through the 'Kazaa' programme.  Rowe had received images in return.  He had set about obtaining, filing, storing, distributing and organising these images over a period of months.  In first interview, Rowe simply admitted possession; stated 'under a thousand images' only.  Gave no details of his sophisticated trafficking processes, confronted with results of professional expert's report in later interview.  Used a pseudonym whilst searching for pictures on the internet to avoid detection.    

 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth and delay in bringing prosecution.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

N.B.  Defendant to be sentenced on the maximum penalties in force when Warrant executed in April 2003 i.e. 3 years (Now 5 years for possession and 10 years for distribution and having available for distribution).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	21 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	21 months' imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

 

 

R.G. Morris, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to offences under the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.  The offences involve the possession on his computer of indecent photographs of children and the distribution of such photographs to others.  The description "indecent photograph" is not perhaps an entirely accurate way to describe the nature of the photographs which had been stored.  They included video clips, one of which showed a female child clearly less than 10 years of age being raped by an adult man.

2.        The Court has seen samples of the photographs, which defence counsel has accepted amount to an accurate representation of each of the 5 categories of such indecent photographs identified by the English Court of Appeal and adopted by this Court in A.G. -v- Le Marquand [2003]JRC043.  All these photographs had been downloaded from the internet.  Rowe procured some of these by placing an advertisement in an internet chatroom for photographs of pre-teen children.  This involved an element of trading, in that such photographs were exchanged with other remote users.  1,229 such photographs were exchanged, including 190 photographs falling within categories 4 and 5 - that is to say the categories involving most serious abuse of children.  There were about 3,000 photographs stored on the computer and some had been secreted in secure areas.

3.        We wish, first of all, to state that the abuse of children, particularly very small children, and the encouragement of such abuse by trading in repulsive and degrading photographs of this kind are offences with which the Court must deal severely in order to express society's repugnance at the corruption of innocence.  We want to send out a clear message that those who use the internet for the purpose of breaking the law in this way must expect to be severely punished.  The legislature has recently recognised the gravity of this kind of offending by increasing the maximum penalties.  In the circumstances of this case, however, we are prepared to treat the maximum penalty as being one of three years because of the delay involved in bringing the matter to a conclusion.

4.        Defence counsel has very persuasively addressed the Court in submitting that this is a special case and that a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.  He has drawn attention to the background of the defendant and to his personality.  We have been unable to accept that contention, having particular regard to the contents of the reports of the Probation Officer and the Consultant Psychologist which have been placed before us.  Those reports indicate a lack of remorse and an inability to understand and empathise with the corruption of the children shown in these photographs.

5.        Counsel told us that he had received instructions this morning to say that the defendant was now willing to open up and to talk about the issues, difficult as this was, in a way in which he had been unable to talk at previous interviews with the professionals.  We have given anxious consideration to this suggestion but we think it is a decision at which the defendant should have arrived long ago.  We are going to impose a custodial sentence but we will nonetheless ask the prison and the hospital authorities to give all possible assistance if any request for help is made by the defendant, as we hope it will.

6.        As to the length of sentence, we have taken into consideration the guilty plea, the youth of the defendant and the delay to which this investigation has been subject.  That delay was unfortunate but we think that the nature of this kind of offending does inevitably involve some delay.  We accept that it has had a serious effect upon the defendant's family.

7.        Having balanced all these matters, we wish again to state that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate would, if we were applying the maximum penalty now in force, have been entirely correct and even on the modest side.  Given, however, that we have accepted that the ceiling is one of three years' imprisonment we do not think that a deduction of twelve months is sufficient to reflect the mitigating factors available to the defendant, including his guilty plea, his youth, his previous good character and the delay to which this investigation has been subject.  Rowe, we are going to sentence you, therefore, as follows: On count one you will be sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, on count two to twenty one months' imprisonment and on count three to twenty one months' imprisonment, all those sentences to be concurrent and we order the forfeiture of the computers and other paraphernalia.

Authorities

R -v- Oliver, Hartrey and Baldwin [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 28.

A.G. -v- Le Marquand [2003]JRC043..