Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC184

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th December 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

John Edward Moignard

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  68

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

The victim, who was 14 years old at the time of the offence, was introduced to the Defendant approximately one month prior to the offence, by a group of her friends and would visit his house despite having been advised against it.

On the evening of 5^th September, 2006, the victim visited the Defendant's house and the two of them played cards.  At one point the victim won a game and threw her cards down on the floor.  The Defendant knelt down in front of her and whilst picking the cards up, put his head in her lap.  The victim moved her legs towards her chest in an attempt to stop the Defendant doing this, and pushed him away at the same time.  However he persisted in his advances and was successful in undoing her trousers.  The Defendant then performed oral sex on the victim for approximately five minutes despite the victim's protests.

After the incident the victim returned home and was initially reluctant to say what had happened, but then she disclosed the incident and was taken to the Police.

The Defendant was interviewed and promptly admitted to performing oral sex on the victim, digitally penetrating her and touching her breast under her clothing.

Aggravating factors include the large age gap between the Defendant and his victim, a breach of a trust, the ignoring of protests, the fact that oral sex was involved and that the Defendant attempted to shift blame onto the victim.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation with authorities.

On sentencing, Defence Counsel voiced the Defendant's full admission of responsibility.

Previous Convictions:

7 previous convictions for 42 offences including 23 of a sexual nature (15 indecent assaults and 8 offences of procuring an act of gross indecency),

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Defendant was released in February 2004 from a lengthy conviction for serious sexual offences but re-offended with a young girl whom he had groomed for a month prior to the attack, and this, despite his old age.

The guilty plea is seen as important in cases of this sort, but due to the seriousness of the offence involving oral sex, the Court found the Crown's conclusions to be too low.

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

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment in June, 2000, for offences against children.

2.        You were released in February 2004 and, although you are now 68, you have re-offended again with a 14 year old girl who trusted you by coming to your house on a regular basis.  It is clear to us that there was a substantial element of grooming as set out in the reports.

3.        We have not heard any details of the victim's situation and it is certainly not clear to us how these visits were allowed to happen by those who had responsibility for the girl.  But that does not detract from the fact that the responsibility for what occurred lies entirely with you and it is to your credit that you have, belatedly, admitted this today through your counsel.

4.        Now we make full allowance for your guilty plea, which is a matter of importance in cases like this, and for your age, although your age has not stopped you committing this offence.  We have also considered carefully all the matters which Mr Hopwood has put forward on your behalf, but the fact remains that this was a serious offence and it involved your committing oral sex on the victim and you are a man who has committed sexual offences on children before.

5.        In those circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the Crown's conclusions are too low and the correct sentence is one of 3½ years' imprisonment and that is the sentence we impose.

No Authorities