Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC136

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 July 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

Vincent Charles John Sharman

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

Age:  50.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had become acquainted with the victim through the social networking site Facebook, on which she used a photograph of an older female friend.  The 14 year old victim and a 16 year old female friend, both of whom had consumed alcohol, met the defendant by chance outside a pub in St Helier.  It was raining and the girls asked if they could take shelter in the defendant's bedsit.  The defendant agreed and as they walked back to his home, one of the girls suggested a "threesome".  Almost as soon as they entered the flat the victim immediately asked the defendant if they were going to have sex.  At first he was reluctant as by this stage he was aware of her true age.  However the victim assured him that she done it before and had never "told on other men".  Eventually the defendant relented.  The defendant engaged in sexual activity with the victim which commenced with them cuddling and kissing on his bed, then progressed to kissing her breasts, digitally penetrating her vagina and anus, performing oral sex on her (all of which give rise to Count 1) and allowing her to perform oral sex on him (Count 2).  The sexual activity lasted between one and two hours.  The 16 year old later described the defendant as looking somewhat uncomfortable, whereas the victim looked like she was enjoying herself.  The girls left after it became apparent that the defendant was unable to sustain an erection.  The offences only came to light through subsequent blasé comments made by the victim to her school social worker.  Aggravating factors included the fact that the victim had been drinking, the age gap and oral sex, to which the Court take a particularly condign view. 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant at all intents and purpose wrote his own indictment through his admissions, as although the victim made an initial complaint she refused to cooperate with the police investigation.  The defendant was cooperative throughout and entered guilty pleas.  The only other evidence available was a statement from the 16 year old who might have been reluctant to give evidence as she didn't think that the defendant should "get done" for what happened.  No premeditation, grooming or breach of trust.  No evidence of any emotional damage and no victim impact statement.  The victim was alleged to be sexually experienced.  The defendant was historically a family man who, at the time of offending, was lonely following the recent break-up of his marriage.  It was accepted that the defendant had initially refused to participate in any sexual activity with the victim, had been goaded by her and relented following her promises of secrecy.  Defendant so ashamed of his actions that he was taken into Orchard House for observation due to fears he might self-harm.  Previous good character.  He had established a new relationship with a mature woman.  The Children's Service had no concerns over him returning to live with her and her teenage daughter.  Supportive references and letters.  Remorse from outset and no attempt at any time to blame victim in any way. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total:  12 months' imprisonment.

Order under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements of the Law, sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court viewed this as a very difficult sentencing exercise, one Jurat felt that there were exceptional circumstances which could justify allowing the defendant his continuing liberty, the other that even a sexually experienced 14 year old needs the protection of the law; the Bailiff had to cast the deciding vote.

Total:  6 months' imprisonment. 

Order under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements of the Law, made. 

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You agreed with two girls, one aged 14 and one aged 16, whom you knew through Facebook, to go back to your flat.  There, admittedly with the enthusiastic participation of the 14 year old victim, you engaged in sexual activity with her, including kissing her breasts, digitally penetrating her vagina and her anus, performing oral sex on her and allowing her to perform oral sex on you.  An aggravating feature was that she had been drinking.  However, behind that bare recital of facts lies an unusual set of circumstances.  We have reasonably clear evidence of what occurred because, although the victim has refused to make any statement or any complaint, there is a statement from the 16 year old which broadly accords with what you said to the police, and we would mention the particular following matters. 

2.        First of all the girls asked if they could come to your flat in order to get warm.  Once there it was the victim who suggested that they participate with you in a threesome.  In other words she raised the idea of sexual activity.  According to the 16 year old witness the victim kept asking to have sex.  She quotes her as saying "Are we going to have sex now or what?"  Secondly, the victim kept pressing you, and we accept that you were reluctant and said that you could get into trouble as she was only 14, but she then called you a coward and said no one would ever know.  She said that she had had sex with other men and had not told on them.  Thirdly, the 16 year old witness said that once sexual activity started the victim clearly appeared to be enjoying it, whereas you looked nervous and guilty.  Fourthly, as already stated the victim has refused to make a statement or to complain although there was an initial complaint to her social worker shortly afterwards.  And then fifthly, we do accept this was only one incident, there was no element of a continuing sexual relationship, there was no element of grooming, and there was no element of breach of trust. 

3.        There is also strong personal mitigation.  You made immediate admissions and have pleaded guilty.  It is quite clear from all the reports that you are extremely remorseful; you have no previous convictions of any sort, and there is no suggestion you have paedophile tendencies; it happened when you were lonely after the break up of your marriage.  We have read the excellent references which show you have a good work record; you are now in a new relationship, your new partner has a daughter of 15 and the Children's Service has confirmed that they do not regard you as any risk to her and that you are free to return to live with them, and the background report recommends probation and community service. 

4.        The Court always has to bear in mind the need to protect young girls from themselves.  Where there is an age gap as large as this it requires truly exceptional circumstances to justify a non-custodial sentence.  We deal first with the notification requirements; these must be imposed under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, we consider that the appropriate period before you may apply to come off it is one of 5 years. 

5.        Turning to sentence, the Court has found this a very difficult case.  One Jurat feels that the case is exceptional and that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate.  The other Jurat feels that even sexually experienced young girls have to be protected from themselves and that where the age gap is as great as this and a man of 49, knowingly undertakes sexual activity with a 14 year old girl, even where she has encouraged it, he must expect a prison sentence in order to show that this sort of conduct cannot be accepted.  I have therefore had to exercise a casting vote.  Reluctantly, because I fully appreciate the powerful mitigation in this case, I have decided I must side with the latter Jurat.  However, we feel that a prison sentence will be punishment enough and that in view of the very powerful mitigation and the unusual circumstances of the case, a lesser sentence is appropriate. 

6.        The sentence of the Court on both counts is one of 6 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

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

R-v-Lennon [1991] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 19.

AG-v-Velosa [2011] JRC 026.