Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC029

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9^th February 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

L

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, to guilty pleas to:

Age:  82

Plea: Guilty (Counts 1-3, 6 and 9).  Counts 4, 5, 7 and 8 to remain on file.

Details of Offence:

Pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assault and two counts of procuring acts of gross indecency on children committed when he was in his thirties and fifties.  The victims were his daughter and his grand-daughter (the first victim's own daughter) respectively.  He abused each of them when they were aged between 7 and 14 years old.  The abuse took place against both children in his own home and at various locations.  One count of indecent assault in respect of each victim covered a continuing course of abuse against each child over the course of several years.  The assaults involved regular touching of the genitalia under their clothing.  The victims alleged digital penetration which the defendant denied, but the Court did not see any need to resolve that issue in all the circumstances of the case.  In addition he pleaded guilty to gross indecency and indecent assault on his daughter by attempting to force her to perform oral sex on him and then performing simulated intercourse on her by rubbing his penis on her bare legs until he ejaculated.  In addition to the touching of his grand-daughter, he also admitted forcing her to perform oral sex on him.

Gross breach of trust; habitual abuse; profound emotional and psychological consequences for the victims, and his grand-daughter especially.  No real evidence of remorse.  Court said he had robbed both women of their childhoods and turned their family home into a place of dread.

Details of Mitigation:

Acceptable guilty pleas at a relatively early stage; his age and the age of the allegations suggested he was unlikely ever to offend again; the increased effect of a prison sentence on a man of his age; previous good character.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

No recommendation for deportation.

Crown's approach to sentencing: leaving aside his age and the age of the allegations, Crown would have sought a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.  Crown made allowance for age in two ways - (1) unlikely ever to offend again (2) crushing effect of a prison sentence on an 82 year old.  Crown's conclusions: 3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 30 months' imprisonment.

M. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was the most appalling breach of trust.  You repeatedly abused your daughter over a period of about 5 years, between the age of 7 and 11, by touching her vagina.  On one occasion you went further and tried to get her to have oral sex with you and then you had some form of simulated sexual intercourse with her.

2.        If that were not bad enough, you repeated your conduct some 20 years later with your daughter's adopted daughter, in other words your granddaughter.  This too continued over several years and involved similar conduct.  On one occasion you persuaded her to commit oral sex on you.

3.        We agree with the way the Crown Advocate summarised this.  What you did robbed these two women of their childhood.  The family home, a place which should afford a safe and loving haven for a child, became for both of them a place of dread.  The victim impact statements make for harrowing reading.

4.        As against that, Advocate Haines has put forward much mitigation on your behalf.  You have pleaded guilty which has saved them from the trauma of giving evidence and you are entitled to full credit for that.  You are a man hitherto of excellent character and we have read the references you have received.  The offences were a long time ago.  It is clear that you are no future threat to anyone now, and we have read the medical reports which refer to your medical condition.  We also agree that the effect on your wife of your going to prison will be substantial but that is sadly often the case where people commit serious offences.

5.        What has caused us most difficulty in this case is your age.  You are 82 and it is clear from the cases that this is a strong mitigating factor.  The Courts do not like to impose a sentence of imprisonment which is likely to result in a person dying in prison.  Nevertheless, we are quite clear that this offending is far too serious to be dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence, even allowing for all the factors I have described, and all the matters which Advocate Haines has very eloquently put forward on your behalf.  If you had been a younger man you would have received a much, much longer sentence.

6.        However, we do take into account all these matters and we feel able to make a slightly greater reduction than that made by the Crown.  We are going to impose a total of 2½ years' imprisonment.  We do that simply by adjusting the Crown's conclusions from 18 months to 15 months.  So on Count 1, it is 12 months' imprisonment; on Counts 2 and 3, 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent; on Count 6, 12 months' imprisonment, consecutive and on Count 9, 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent with Count 6, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 3.  A total of 2½ years.

No Authorities