Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC243

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

19^th December 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Gregory Andrew Crisp

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1: At approximately 2 am on 8^th July, 2007, the victim (aged 15 years and 5 months), a neighbour, work Crisp, who was asleep in bed babysitting for his estranged wife.  After talking for a while, Crisp inserted his finger into her vagina.  They were interrupted by Crisp's estranged wife, who was also a friend of the victim.

Count 2: The victim then asked Crisp's estranged wife if she could have sex with Crisp, to which Mrs Crisp jokingly agreed.  The victim then went back into the bedroom, sat astride Crisp and Crisp guided his erect penis towards the victim's vagina.  Their genitals touched, but Mrs Crisp interrupted them again before sexual intercourse could take place.

Aggravating factors: age disparity, victim was intoxicated, Crisp knew she was a virgin, however towards the lower end of offence range.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, comparative youth, cooperation, and consequences to him.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 3 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 6 months' Probation Order and 90 hours' Community Service Order.

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We accept that this encounter was initiated by the victim.  You had been babysitting for your wife, from whom you have been separated, and looking after your children and you were asleep in bed when she came into your bedroom.  You had also overheard a conversation just outside your bedroom when she had asked your wife, from whom you were separated, whether she could have sex with you.  It appeared to you that your wife had agreed to that, although it was your wife who later came in and stopped matters from proceeding to full intercourse.  The law is there to protect young girls from themselves.  You knew she was 15½ and that she was drunk.

2.        We agree with the Crown that as these offences go, this was very much towards the bottom end of the scale.  As we say the girl was 15½, you were not in a position of trust towards her and there was no element of grooming or preparation.  This was an impulsive reaction on your part to take advantage of an opportunity which presented itself.  The victim made no complaint, it was not she who went to the police.  There are no ill effects on the victim and she was physically mature and there is no suggestion in this case that you are attracted to children as opposed to women.

3.        Even in such circumstances the Court has to consider whether a prison sentence is required to mark society's determination that young persons should be protected, if necessary, from themselves.  You were the older person, you were sober, you knew she had had something to drink, the responsibility lay with you to say no. 

4.        We do take account of the mitigation in this case which is powerful.  You pleaded guilty, you made immediate admissions as to what had occurred, thereby making it clear that the victim would not have to give evidence, you have no previous convictions of this nature.  The consequences for you have been serious in the sense that you have lost your job.  This matter has been hanging over you for some time and we do observe in passing that we find it difficult to understand why this matter was committed to the Royal Court.  It is simply impossible to conceive of any Court passing anything like a sentence of over 12 months, which is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court.  You are clearly remorseful and we have read carefully the probation report which says that you are at low risk of re-offending and recommends probation and community service.

5.        We have considered this matter very carefully because the Court does have to consider whether prison is appropriate, even in cases like this which are towards the bottom end of the scale, because young girls need to be protected from themselves.  We are satisfied that prison is not required in this case.

6.        The decision of the Court is that you be placed on probation for 6 months and you will carry out 90 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 3 months' imprisonment which is the sentence we would have imposed had we thought that prison was necessary.

7.        You must realise of course that if you breach the probation order or if you don't carry out the Community Service you will be brought back here and then you would be ordered to serve the sentence of imprisonment.  We hope very much that we will not see you before us again.

No Authorities