Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC003

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th January 2011

Before     :

Sir Christopher Pitchers, Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

Morag Louise Jordan

Anthony Jordan

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction at Assize trial on 26^th November, 2010, on the following charges:

Morag Louise Jordan

8 counts of:

Assault (Counts 2, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27).

Age:  62.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

The offences arise from Mrs Jordan's behaviour towards four children who were in her care at Haut de la Garenne.  Aged in her mid twenties and thirties at the time of the offending, Mrs Jordan assaulted young girls and boys who were resident at the home.  She would regularly strike three of the children, all girls, about the head or face with her hand (Counts 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24).  Additionally on one occasion she rubbed one of the girls face in urine soaked sheets after the girl had wet the bed (Count 2).  The girl was aged between 14 and 15 years.  On another single occasion she punched another girl in the back with her fist (Count 27).  This girl was aged between 9 and 11 years.  In addition Mrs Jordan assaulted a young boy who was not part of her group.  When Mrs Jordan discovered him in her group where he was not supposed to be she took off her wooden shoe and threw it at him, striking him on the head (Count 16).  He was aged between 9 and 12. 

During the course of her duties to care for these vulnerable children, Mrs Jordan routinely picked on and bullied the three girls.  She was a cold woman who resorted to her hands frequently and unnecessarily. There were strong suggestions from the evidence at trial that she particularly picked on one of the girls who spent the majority of her childhood at Haut de la Garenne under the care of Mrs Jordan. 

It is clear that the actions of Mr and Mrs Jordan point to a pattern of repeated acts of casual violence against these children. 

Details of Mitigation:

Good character; co-operation with the police; excellent references. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 16:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 20:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 21:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 22:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 23:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 24:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 27:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  12 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court remarked that the behaviour of the Jordan's was of the utmost seriousness as it was violence against children.  They viewed Mrs Jordan as cold, uncaring and spiteful, and of Mr Jordan; a bully.  

The Court commented on the references out before the Court on behalf of the Jordan's.  There was no doubt their character, since leaving Haut de la Garenne, had been impeccable. 

The case was so serious they had no possible alternative other than to order immediate custody.  The Court reduced the final conclusions in the following way:-

Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 16:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.
Count 20:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.
Count 21:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 22:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 23:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 16.
Count 24:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 16.
Count 27:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 20.

Total:  9 months' imprisonment. 

Anthony Jordan

8 counts of:

Assault (Counts 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46 and 47).

Age:  62.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Mr Jordan carried out a series of assaults on two young boys who were in his care whilst he was employed at Haut de la Garenne.  Aged in his late twenties and early thirties at the time of the offending, Mr Jordan regularly struck these two boys on the elbow with either a knife or metal spoon when they were at the dinner table (counts 44, 45, 46 and 47).   It was said in evidence at trial that this was his "signature move". 

On an occasion he struck one of the boys over the head with a shoe because he was angry with him for failing to clean his shoes to Mr Jordan's satisfaction (Count 36).  He was aged between 10 and 12 years.  Additionally, on a previous occasion where the same boy refused to eat his lunch, Mr Jordan struck the boy across the face with his hand, knocking him off his chair and to the floor (Count 39).  It left a blood blister under the boy's eye.  He was aged between 8 and 10 years. 

Mr Jordan regularly hit the other boy across the face when he was aged between 10 and 13 years.  In evidence the victim said that Mr Jordan would do this for a variety of reasons including leaving the table without asking, not finishing your food or for being cheeky. 

It is clear that the actions of Mr and Mrs Jordan point to a pattern of repeated acts of casual violence against these children. 

Details of Mitigation:

Good character; co-operation with the police; excellent references. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 36:	2 months' imprisonment.
Count 39:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 40:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 41:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 44:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 45:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 46:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 47:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  9 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court remarked that the behaviour of the Jordan's was of the utmost seriousness as it was violence against children.  They viewed Mrs Jordan as cold, uncaring and spiteful, and of Mr Jordan; a bully. 

The Court commented on the references out before the Court on behalf of the Jordan's.  There was no doubt their character, since leaving Haut de la Garenne, had been impeccable. 

The case was so serious they had no possible alternative other than to order immediate custody.  The Court reduced the final conclusions in the following way:-

Count 36:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 39:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 36.
Count 40:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 36.
Count 41:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 40.
Count 44:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 36.
Count 45:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 36.
Count 46:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 40.
Count 47:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 40.

Total:  6 months' imprisonment. 

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

Advocate M. L. Preston for Mrs M. Jordan.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Mr A. Jordan.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        All the children who came into Haut de la Garenne did so because of some troubled or potentially damaging incident or events in their lives, none of which were their fault.  What they needed desperately was love and care and sympathy.  What they most definitely did not need was cruelty and violence but it was for some of them, as the Jury have found by their verdict, that that they received at your hands.  Our judgment of you, and of course I have seen you in the course of the trial, and the Jurats have read the papers, is that you Mrs Jordan were cold and uncaring and spiteful, and you Anthony Jordan, were a bully.  This was not, in our judgment, heavy-handed discipline, this went further than that, it was cruelty and totally unnecessary violence. 

2.        So far as aggravating and mitigating features are concerned there is no doubt that the total experiences in childhood of these men and women, as they now are, have left most of them seriously damaged in adult life.  You were part of that but we remind ourselves that it cannot all have been because of you, other terrible things happened in their lives which will have impacted seriously on their development as human beings in adulthood.  We bear in mind also that apart from these offences, you are people of good character both before and more importantly since, we have read many references speaking in glowing terms of you and there is no doubt at all that since your tenure at Haut de la Garenne your character has been impeccable. 

3.        We are dealing with offences which took place many years ago.  That is relevant in two ways; it is argued that attitudes to physical punishment were different in those days and so to some extent they were.  We are talking only of 25 or 30 years ago, we are not talking about the middle of the nineteenth century.  Too much can be made of this because we have seen the rules that existed in the home and they were, save for the fact that corporal punishment was in some circumstances allowed, very much what one would have expected to exist.  It is fair to you to say that you did not see the rules but you do not need to see them to know that you should not do the sort of things that you had done. 

4.        The second relevance of the delay is that it is a matter of mitigation in your case that there has been the passage of this long period of time since the offences before you now fall to be dealt with.  It is clear on all the authorities that in this sort of situation that mitigation is limited, it is not as limited as it can be in relation to sexual offences against children, but it is a limited mitigation because they were children in circumstances where it was very difficult to complain.  To the limited extent that official complaints were made, it is clear that absolutely nothing was done about them.  We bear in mind also as part of what has happened since, that you undoubtedly have suffered public humiliation as a result of your arrest and prosecution.  In the light of the verdicts of the Jury that was a humiliation which was deserved because they found you guilty, as we have indicated, of these serious offences against these children.  It hardly needs to be said that offences against children in care by those who are charged with the care of them are of the utmost seriousness, whether they be sexual offences, which of course these were not, or whether they are offences of violence and it is absolutely essential in our judgment that anybody knows if they have care of children and mistreat them in any way at all that amounts to criminal offences, when the law catches up with them they will be treated seriously. 

5.        In our judgment the offences here pass the custody threshold; they would have at the time and they still do now.  We have considered all the mitigation that has been set out very properly in detail by your Advocates but we have concluded that the only possible sentence in this case is one of immediate custody.  Those sentences will be considerably shorter than they would have been had this been dealt with, let us say, in the mid 80's, because of the mitigation you have not only of the delay, but that of your impeccable life since, and the fact that you will be serving a prison sentence at an age when very few people have to serve a prison sentence, but it is our conclusion that no alternative to custody is possible.  The length of the sentences will be slightly shorter than those proposed by the Attorney-General and structured in a slightly different way. 

6.        The conclusion of this Court is that these offences are so serious that only a custodial penalty is appropriate for them.  In your case Mrs Jordan, the sentence will be one of 9 months' imprisonment made up as follows.  Count 20 and Count 27; 3 months concurrent with one another, Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, Count 21; 2 months' imprisonment, Count 22; 2 months' imprisonment, those concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 3 months on Counts 20 and 27.  Count 16; 3 months' imprisonment, Count 23; 2 months' imprisonment, Count 24; 2 months' imprisonment, those concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 6 months, making 9 months in all. 

7.        In your case Anthony Jordan, the sentence will be one of 6 months' imprisonment made up as follows.  Counts 36 and 39; 3 months' imprisonment, Counts 44 and 45; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent with one another.  Counts 40 and 41; 3 months' imprisonment, Count 46; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 47; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 3 months in respect of Counts 36 and 39, making a total of 6 months in all. 

Authorities

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

R-v-Dodgson [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 85.

R-v-Todd (1990) 12 Cr. App. R. (S) 14.

AG-v-Bradley 2000/60.

R-v-Durkin (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S) 313.

R-v-Rayson [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 317.

R-v-Ali [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 120.

R-v-Martine G [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S)

Attorney General's Ref No 105 of 2004 (S. H.) [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S).