Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC111

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th June 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

X

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction at Assize trial on 18^th April, 2010, on the following charges:

Age:  62.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

The offences in Counts 1-7 were committed against Victim 1.  The offences took place over a number of years between 1975 and 1982 when the defendant was in his late 20s to early 30s.  The offending started by touching her vagina and progressed to penetrating her vagina with his fingers and eventually led to the rape at Count 7.  The offending took place in various houses in Jersey. 

The offences in Counts 8-15 were committed against Victim 2.  The offences took place over a number of years between 1980 and 1987 when the defendant was in his early to late 30s.  The offending consisted of the defendant penetrating her vagina with his fingers on numerous occasions over a long period of time.  The offending took place in various houses in Jersey. 

At trial the defendant was acquitted of the offences in Counts 5 and 9, but found guilty of the remaining 13 offences. 

Details of Mitigation:

Very limited mitigation for age of the offences. 

Previous Convictions:

One for indecent assault on a female over the age of 16. 

Conclusions:

Total:  12 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The view of the Attorney General is correct.  There is no mitigation available.  No plea of guilty saving the victims the ordeal of giving evidence.  Only some mitigation in the years that have passed since the offence... All in all, the Crown's conclusions have been structured in the right way.  These were serious offences committed against two separate victims. 

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate D. S. Steenson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You subjected Victim 1 and Victim 2 to an horrific period of sexual abuse, both stretching over many years involving serious indecent assaults and on one occasion, rape.  It is impossible to exaggerate the grave consequences of long-term sexual abuse in this case.  There is the immediate trauma of subjecting the child to a terrifying and repulsive sexual attack, depriving them of what should be the most joyful and carefree time of their lives, their childhood, by constant abuse, but in the longer term, because they have been abused by somebody from whom they were entitled to trust, and abused in this disgraceful way, they will have effects upon their lives, that have been outlined to us from their victim impact statements in a most moving way, that will never go away.  Your sentence will end but the consequences for them, in many respects in their lives, will never end because you have destroyed important parts of their development and have put difficulties in the way of them from which they will never recover, though one must say, in this case, to the great credit of both of the women, they have made absolutely everything they could of their lives and in those aspects of their lives that you have not ruined, they have achieved in an admirable way. 

2.        So far as sentence is concerned, we take the view that the approach of the Attorney General is correct.  There is no mitigation here, no pleas of guilty saving them from the terrible ordeal of having to give evidence in open court before strangers.  Some mitigation only in the fact that many years have passed since these offences were committed, that in part is because we all have to admit that there was a time when children were not believed as they should have been when they made allegations of this sort, and that was clearly illustrated in 1982 in relation to the allegations that were raised then.  Your age is some very slight mitigation; you are 62 and are starting what will be a substantial prison sentence.  We are invited to reduce the sentence because of the birth of your two children, but it remains to be seen whether Social Services will permit you to have any role in their lives, bearing in mind the offences of which you have been convicted. 

3.        In our judgement the sentences asked for by the Attorney General are the right ones and structured in the right way; these were a series of offences against two quite separate victims, in fact not overlapping much in point of time, and it is entirely appropriate that the sentences imposed in respect of each victim should be consecutive with one another.  Similarly also, in our judgement the Crown have made the appropriate deductions from what would otherwise be the starting point to take account of what little mitigation there is. 

4.        The sentences are these.  In respect of the indecent assaults in respect of Victim 1; 4 years' imprisonment and in respect of the rape; 8 years' imprisonment, those sentences to run concurrent with one another.  In respect of the indecent assaults against Victim 2; 4 years' imprisonment, those sentences to run concurrent with one another, but consecutive to the 8 years in respect of the other sentences, making a total of 12 years' imprisonment in all. 

5.        We adjourn the question of costs to another day. 

Authorities

AG-v-Turner 2000/143.

R-v-Millberry [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 31.

AG-v-Donnelly [2009] JRC 170.