Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC158

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd September 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Martin Richards

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction at Assize trial on 6^th July, 2010, on a charge of:

Age:  51.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant was a friend of the victim, a 25 year old woman.  Shortly before the offence took place the victim moved into the Defendant's home as a lodger.  Her room did not have a lock and when she asked for one to be installed the Defendant told her she could trust him.  The Defendant said that he believed that the relationship between him and the victim was intimate.  The victim denied this.

On the night of the 18^th February, 2010, the victim was in bed asleep, and woke to find the Defendant kneeling by her bed, with one hand underneath her top fondling her breast and the other inside her trousers in the pubic region.  She jumped up and the Defendant stopped.  The victim ran to the kitchen to call her boyfriend and the Defendant repeatedly apologised, saying he was drunk.  The victim's boyfriend arrived at the address and argued with the Defendant before taking the victim to his own home.  When they returned the following day to collect her belongings the Defendant was not home.  They later reported the incident to the police, who attempted to locate the Defendant.  A warrant was obtained and his house was searched.  Two days later the Defendant was arrested at the Seascale Hotel in Gorey.

At trial the Defendant did not challenge the victim's recollection of the incident, but argued that he had a genuine (though mistaken) belief that the victim consented and that he had believed this due to the "positive noises" she made.  However in cross-examination he admitted that the victim had been asleep and had not in fact consented.  The victim was required to give evidence.  She did so from behind screens and was clearly distressed.  Her victim impact statement made it clear that the incident had greatly affected her.

Details of Mitigation:

The version of events provided to the probation officer was significantly at odds with the Prosecution case despite the guilty verdict.  The Crown argued that the Defendant appeared to want to place some blame on the victim for essentially "leading him on" and questioned whether the Defendant's stated remorse was genuine or whether he merely felt sorry for himself due to his conviction.  The Defence argued that the remorse was genuine, though conceded that the Defendant may have expressed it better in his letter to the Court, in which he said he was sorry "if" he had caused the victim any upset.

The nature of the offence was at the low end of the scale for indecent assault, though not at the lowest.  Counsel for the Defendant emphasised the necessity of identifying the correct sentence for this offender and this offence and argued that the Crown's starting point of three years was clearly too high.  The lack of aggravating factors such as violence was emphasised.

The Defence argued that, though there was no credit for a guilty plea, the Defendant deserved some credit for the way in which the Defence had been conducted, which saved the victim from being cross-examined on the incident itself.  It was also argued that the breach of trust was not as aggravating as the Crown considered it to be.

Good character and previous high standing - many references provided to the Court, all of which spoke highly of him.  His career had been ruined and he had suffered misfortunes in recent years.  The three months he spent on remand had been a shocking experience for him and he had behaved impeccably since being released on bail after Indictment.

Assessed at being at low risk of re-offending.

The Defendant asked the Court to impose a probation order or community service order.

Previous Convictions:

One minor motoring offence, treated as being of good character.

Conclusions:

Total:  2 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court wished to send a clear signal that molesting a woman in this way in her own home was completely unacceptable.

Total:  15 months' imprisonment. 

C.M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Paul Martin Richards is to be sentenced for an offence of indecent assault upon a young female lodger.  He entered her bedroom while she was asleep and touched her breast and pubic area under her clothes, stopping only when the woman awoke and pushed him away.  There is an element of breach of trust in that the lodger had asked for a lock on her bedroom door but the defendant had told her that it was not necessary. 

2.        Richards was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence; he claimed that he believed that the woman was consenting but the Jury unanimously rejected that defence.  The victim was traumatised by the assault upon her which has, according to the victim impact report, affected her ability to trust other men. 

3.        The Court accepts that this indecent assault was at the lower but not the lowest end of the scale.  Importantly, there was no violence and the defendant desisted immediately the woman woke up.  The Court must, however, send a clear signal that molesting women in this way in their own homes is completely unacceptable.  The victim was asleep and vulnerable; there is no mitigation for a guilty plea; the woman was compelled to endure the stress of giving evidence when at the end of the day, the account of what happened was not disputed by the defendant in any significant way. 

4.        In mitigation we take into account the defendant's previous good character and the other difficulties that he has experienced recently in his life.  The defence has put before us some powerful references, all of which we have taken carefully into consideration. 

5.        You knew very well that this woman did not want a sexual relationship with you but you allowed yourself, when under the influence of alcohol, to interfere with her in a way which caused her much distress.  The Court has to punish you for that offence; we take into account what your counsel has said; the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 15 months. 

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Supreme Court of Jersey.

AG-v-Sousa 2001/219.

AG-v-Ferreira 2002/172.

AG-v-Figueira [2004] JRC058.