Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Cordery [2010] JRC 096 (25 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2010/2010_096.html
Cite as: [2010] JRC 096, [2010] JRC 96

[New search] [Help]

[2010]JRC096

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th May 2010

Before :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Oliver James Cordery

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

8 counts of:	Inciting the making of an indecent photograph of a child, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12.
4 counts of:	Making an indecent photograph of a child, contrary to Article 2 (1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 3, 5, 7 and 10).

Age: 20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 and 2:-

These offences relate to Cordery's behaviour towards seven girls aged between 12 and 15 years. Cordery, aged 19, communicated with the girls via MSN messaging and webcam. He encouraged the girls to expose themselves to him via the webcam. Sometimes the girls agreed, on other occasions they declined his invitation.

Cordery had been charged with incitement when the girls did not expose themselves. He was charged with making indecent photographs of children when they did. However, on the occasions when the girls would expose themselves; these were often mild fleeting displays of their breasts and underwear. It is to be noted they were not the most extreme of images.

Cordery was not a predatory male attempting to corrupt young naïve females. Extensive transcripts "chat-logs" were recovered from the girls' computers. From those chat logs it was quite clear that many of the girls were intensely sexually knowledgeable before any contact with Cordery. Cordery was often led on by the girls to provide alcohol and cigarettes on the unfulfilled promises of sexual displays over the webcam facility.

Details of Mitigation:

Counts 1-12

Youth, good character, early guilty plea, co-operation with the police, naïve behaviour of an immature young man, voluntarily attending counselling/therapy, good references.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	120 Hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 3:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 4:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 5:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 6:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 7:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 8:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 9:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 10:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 11:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 12:	120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total: 120 hours' Community Service Order and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

"This is not the case of an older man corrupting young girls. It is more the case of an immature youth being led on by young girls, sexually advanced and startlingly promiscuous in their advances for alcohol and cigarettes. It is right that he be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly."

Conclusions granted.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1. Corderey is to be sentenced for offences involving the making of indecent photographs of children and the incitement to the making of such photographs. The children were aged between 12 and 15 whereas the defendant was aged about 19 at the material time.

2. The Crown Advocate has made it clear that this is not a case of an older man corrupting young girls but rather of an immature youth being led on by young girls who were startlingly promiscuous in their advances and cynical in their exploitation of the defendant to obtain cigarettes and vodka. Nonetheless, the law exists to protect young children, even against themselves. Corderey was rightly prosecuted for these offences.

3. In mitigation he is a young man of previous good character; he was very co-operative with the investigating officers and made frank admissions from the start; he has pleaded guilty to the Indictment and has demonstrated his remorse. It has been a searing experience for him.

4. We have listened carefully to what the Crown Advocate has said and we think the Crown Advocate has expressed it extremely fairly. We have read your letter and we have read the other letters in support and we hope that you now understand the gravity of what you did and that, if you had been older, we would have been taking an entirely different approach. Now we hope that you can put all this behind you and take advantage of the help of the Probation Service.

5. The conclusions are granted, concurrently on each count. We also record a formal verdict of not guilty on Count 13. You are placed on probation for a period of 18 months during which time you will live and work as directed by the probation officer and comply with any courses which they ask you to do. We also have to punish you and we will impose a sentence of 120 hours of community service and we state that the alternative to that is a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. We hope that we are not going to see you again.

No Authorities