Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC082

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th April 2011

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Tibbo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Simon Stuart Green

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

First Indictment

8 counts of:	Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1-8).
1 count of:	Distributing indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 9).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 1).

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In June 2010, a member of the public handed in a disc containing indecent images, saying she believed it belonged to her ex-boyfriend, A, and that he had been given it by the defendant.  The disc was examined and was found to contain indecent images as follows:-

Indictment 1, Count 9

Copine scale              Pictures

Category 1                 20

Category 2                 13

Category 3                 1

Category 4                 5

Category 5                 0

The defendant was arrested and his parents' and his girlfriend's homes were searched.  Various computer and related equipment was seized.  An A4 print out of an indecent image of a female child was seized from the bedside cabinet. 

Prior to full examination of the seized equipment the defendant was interviewed.  He claimed that he had downloaded legal adult pornography and that the indecent images of children had been inadvertently been included.  He said that he knew he had done wrong by transferring the images to an external hard drive. 

In relation to the disc that had been handed in the defendant said that A has asked for some pornography and he had copied random images from his hard drive, and had unknowingly included some depicting children. 

Five days later the defendant was rearrested.  He admitted to downloading and printing out the image found in his bedside cabinet (Indictment 2, Count 1).  He told the officers he wanted to test his printer. 

The seized equipment was examined and the following images were found:-

Count 1

Copine scale                          Pictures

Category 1                             913

Category 2                             61

Category 3                             18

Category 4                             108

Category 5                             0

 

Count 2

Copine scale                          Pictures

Category 1                             1

Category 2                             0

Category 3                             0

Category 4                             2

Category 5                             0

 

Count 3

Copine scale                          Movies              Pictures

Category 1                             0                                  6

Category 2                             1                                  0

Category 3                             1                                  0

Category 4                             3                                  2

Category 5                             0                                  0

 

Count 4                                  Pictures

Category 1                             224

Category 2                             23

Category 3                             12

Category 4                             53

Category 5                             0

 

Count 5

Copine scale                          Pictures

Category 1                             100

Category 2                             29

Category 3                             6

Category 4                             26

Category 5                             0

 

Count 6

Copine scale                          Movies              Pictures

Category 1                             1                                  146

Category 2                             2                                  34

Category 3                             3                                  1

Category 4                             4                                  31

Category 5                             0                                  0

 

Count 7

Copine scale                          Movies              Pictures

Category 1                             0                                  467

Category 2                             4                                  56

Category 3                             1                                  49

Category 4                             18                                 190

Category 5                             1                                  6

 

Count 8

Copine scale                          Pictures

Category 1                             20

Category 2                             13

Category 3                             1

Category 4                             5

Category 5                             0

 

The defendant was arrested and interviewed.  He admitted to being addicted to pornography and said that he downloaded thousands of images a day.  He maintained he did not get any pleasure from the images of children.  He said that he was aware that he had more than 60,000 pornographic images but said that he thought only 50-60 of them were of children.  He admitted to having sorted the images into folders with titles such as "boys" and "special young".  He later admitted to enjoying looking at the indecent images of children, but denied that he was aroused by them.  He accepted that he knowingly put indecent images of children on the disc given to A. 

Agreed descriptions of a representative sample of the images and movies were provided to the court. 

The defendant is assessed as being at moderate to high risk of similar reconviction but low risk of contact offences.  He had told the psychologist that he wanted to build a complete and comprehensive collection of all types of pornography. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; difficult upbringing and historic special needs.  Only 2,603 of the more than 1,000,000 pornographic images found were children. 

Previous Convictions:

Two convictions for five offences.  No previous sexual offending.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of PC and associated equipment sought.

Order for a 5 year notification period but no restraining order under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

A prison sentence was inevitable.  Not a victimless crime.

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of PC and associated equipment ordered.

Order for 5 year notification period but no restraining order under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, made.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Green you have pleaded guilty to offences involving the downloading of indecent images of children on your computer.  As your Advocate said the charge is making these images, that does not of course mean that you have been personally involved in their production, but you have made them by means of downloading what is on the internet onto your computer.  In total there were some 2,603 still images, and 39 movie files.  Many of these had been deleted.  Because more than one piece of equipment was involved there is an element of duplication, which is put at something in the region of 10%.  Of these images some 6 still and 1 film were at Level 5 on the Copine Scale, that involves sadism or bestiality, and 417 of the stills and 26 of the films were at Level 4, which involves penetrative sex with children. 

2.        The Court has made it clear on a number of occasions that offences of this nature will almost invariably lead to a prison sentence.  Indeed the Court noted recently that offences of this nature appear to be on the increase and the sentencing levels may have to be increased.  What is very important to note is that these are not victimless crimes.  People who download these sort of pictures onto computers sometimes suggest they are because the pictures are already on the internet.  But they are not victimless; the unfortunate children who are involved in the making of these films and pictures are almost invariably forced to do so, and at the very least they are ruthlessly exploited and corrupted by those who are involved in this trade which satisfies the market which is created by people like you who watch it on a computer. 

3.        The Court does take a serious view of these offences and must also reflect the revulsion which members of the public rightly feel about such offences. 

4.        Mrs Pearmain has urged that this is an exceptional case.  She has spoken persuasively on your behalf.  She has emphasised your cooperation and guilty plea; the fact that you have no previous convictions of any relevance, which we entirely accept; she has pointed to your difficult childhood, the fact that in many ways you are a vulnerable adult, you suffer from a disability and you have autistic tendencies.  She has pointed to the contents of the Probation Report and Dr Briggs' report, these show that you are indeed an obsessive person and you became obsessed with the filing and categorisation of the pornography as well as looking at it.  You are addicted to adult pornography, of which the child pornography, which is relevant to the offence, was part.  She also emphasises, as the reports show, that you are not at risk of committing any offence physically against any child.  She emphasises that you would find prison difficult, and we accept that, and she has also referred to the letters of support from your partner and from others, as well as your own letter. 

5.        We have taken all of this into account but after much consideration and with some reluctance we have come to the conclusion that we cannot treat this as exceptional.  These offences have to be dealt with in the way we have described.  What we feel we can do, to take account of the very powerful mitigation that Mrs Pearmain has put forward, is to reduce the conclusions. 

6.        You will be subject to the notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and we order the period before which you can apply to be removed will be one of 5 years. 

7.        In relation to all the charges the sentence is one of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on every charge. 

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of all the computer and other equipment mentioned in the Indictment. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

R-v-Oliver, Hartley & Baldwin (2003) 1 Cr. App. R. 28.

AG-v-Velosa [2011] JRC 026.

AG-v-Gavey [2010] JRC 203.