Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC033

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th February 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Dennis Jeffrey Wright Godwin

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age: 57.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Sexual offences between 26^th August 2004 and 5^th August 2006 (when arrested) involving female victims with chronological age of between 14 and 15 years of age.  The Defendant was living in the victim's home as he mother's sexual partner.  He sexually abused the victim who was exceptionally vulnerable, with severe learning difficulties, giving her an IQ assessed at 49 and a mental age of 7 years.  The Defendant made video recordings of the victim naked, in the bath and gave a running commentary (Count 1).  He then made a video recording of himself performing oral sex and then raping the victim (Counts 2, 3 and 4).  A further video was filmed by the Defendant of himself committing a second rape of the victim (Counts 5 and 6).  Defendant made another video recording of the victim dressing: her breasts bare (Count 7).  Defendant committed a third episode of rape and gross indecency (oral sex) (Counts 8, 9 and 10) and filmed himself and her.  Gross breach of trust.  Defendant in loco parentis.  Given the victim's cognitive lack of ability, she was unable to challenge his sexual advances.  No real evidence of remorse.  Defendant admitted grooming her.  Victim's mother failed to protect her, having her own special needs and low IQ.  Defendant was engaging in sexual activity with both mother and child during the material period.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, albeit inevitable.  No allegations of physical violence or injuries.

Previous Convictions:

Appalling criminal record.  35 previous convictions, mainly for dishonesty.  One historic conviction for USI when the Defendant was 21 and the girl concerned was 14.

Conclusions:

The gross indecency offences (Counts 4 and 9) to be concurrent with the rapes (Counts 3, 6 and 10).  The makings of indecent images to be consecutive (Counts 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8) but concurrent with each other, making a total of 11 years imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 11 years imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of tapes and forfeiture of camcorder.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Godwin.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced on 3 Counts of rape, 2 Counts of gross indecency and 5 Counts involving the making of indecent images of a child.  All the offences involved the same victim, who was a child aged between fourteen and fifteen at the material time.  The child has severe learning disabilities and has a mental age of between seven and eight.  The accused admitted grooming the child for sexual purposes.

2.        The Court has given anxious consideration as to whether the offences involving the filming of the child should be treated consecutively or concurrently.  On balance we accept the view of the Defence Counsel that the proper approach is to treat all this offending as part of one action.  To put it another way, the offences involving the creation of indecent images are to be treated as aggravating the offences of rape and other sexual abuse.

3.        The aggravating features of the offences of rape and gross indecency are first; that the accused was in a position of trust, indeed in loco parentis or acting as a parent, in relation to the child.  Second; the child has a mental age of between seven and eight.  Third; the abuse of this child continued for a period of about a year.  Fourth; the sexual abuse was accompanied by humiliating verbal insults and conduct.  Fifth; the accused filmed the child and worse than that filmed himself having sexual intercourse with her.

4.        There is little to be said in mitigation other than that the accused pleaded guilty and thus spared the child the further distress of having to give evidence.  Having said that the police were in possession of the video tapes showing what had happened and a guilty plea was all but inevitable.  The accused exercised his privilege of remaining silent in interview and cannot therefore be said to have been co-operative or, until writing a letter to the Court, to have shown any remorse.  There was no physical violence however, apart from the rapes themselves, although the accused acknowledged that the child had cried after the first penetration.

5.        The Psychologist's Report shows that the abuse of the child has been highly significant and damaging for her and carries a risk of long term mental health problems.

6.        So far as the indecent images are concerned the accused knew that the child did not want to be filmed, yet ignored her protests and, on one occasion, lied to her that the camera was not running.

7.        Godwin, you treated this child as a sexual plaything and abused her over a period of time to satisfy your perverted sexual lust.  Your behaviour was selfish and repulsive and showed no concern whatsoever for the well being of the child who was in your care.  The Court is going, essentially, to grant the conclusions of the Crown, except that all the sentences will be concurrent and the conclusions moved for on the counts of rape will, therefore, be increased.  On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment; on Count 2 to 3½ years; on Count 3 to 11 years; on Count 4 to 4 years; on Count 5 to 3½ years; on Count 6 to 11 years; on Count 7 to 3 months; on Count 8 to 3½ years; on Count 9 to 4 years; on Count 10 to 11 years making a total of 11 years imprisonment.  All those sentences to run concurrently.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the video tapes and the forfeiture of the camcorder.

No Authorities