Jersey Unreported Judgments

Representation by the Attorney General seeking the defendant to be subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 for a period of 5 years.

[2012]JRC229A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

12 December 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

David Roy Forno

Hearing in relation to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The respondent was convicted of a total of 19 offences, the relevant offences of which were 4 counts of inciting the making of indecent photographs of a child, 12 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child and 1 count of inciting the distribution of an indecent photograph of a child, and on 13^th July, 2010, was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

2.        The Attorney General now makes an application for two orders pursuant to the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 which was not in force at the time of conviction.  The first is an application for the extension of the notification requirements under Articles 3 and 5 of the Sex Offenders Legislation to the respondent and the second is an application under Article 10 for restraining orders to be applied. 

3.        The Court is satisfied from the background report that has been put before us that the respondent presents a moderate risk of sexual reconviction and that if any sexual offences were to be committed, serious sexual harm would be caused and accordingly is satisfied that it is right to make the orders both for the application of the notification requirements and secondly, for restraining orders. 

4.        The position therefore in relation to the notification requirements is that the respondent will be subject to these and the Court orders that he should be so subject for a period of 5 years at least from today, that is the minimum period, and so he cannot apply to have the notification requirements disapplied to him until 5 years from today have gone past.  For the avoidance of doubt, the respondent remains liable to the notification requirements until such time as the Court lifts that order. 

5.        As far as the Restraining Orders are concerned there is an application by the Crown which the respondent consents to, to amend the draft orders which were put in the Attorney General's representation and the Court gives leave to amend so the draft Restraining Orders which we now give effect to by this order are as follows:-

(i)        The respondent produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination from time to time, any computer or any device which may access the internet or any telephone or mobile phone or any device which may store information electronically and which belongs to him or is in his possession, it being noted that such request may be made anywhere, including by the police attending at the respondent's place of residence.

(ii)       The respondent is prohibited from owning or having in his possession any device capable of accessing the internet for the purposes of web browsing and/or communication with other individuals unless:-

(a)       it has the capacity to retain history of internet use; and

(b)       the respondent does not delete such history or cause such history to be deleted.

(iii)      The respondent is prohibited from contacting, or attempting to contact via the internet, any female he knows or believes to be under the age of 16, provided that this order shall not apply in relation to [A]or [B].

(iv)      In the circumstances where he find himself in contact with any persons covered by the third order just made, the respondent has a positive duty to cease such contact and to remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably possible.

(v)       The respondent is prohibited from engaging in any form of teaching, training or instruction of females under the age of 16 without the prior written approval of the Probation Service, always provided that firstly the order shall not apply in relation to [A] or [B] and secondly this order shall not apply in any circumstances where such teaching, training or instruction is ancillary or incidental to, and/or does not constitute the main purpose of any employment or any unpaid role or appointment undertaken by the respondent. 

6.        In making these orders I emphasise to the respondent that breach of those orders of itself is a criminal offence for which he would be liable to be prosecuted and face a further period in custody, so they are important orders and it is open to either the Attorney General or to the respondent to apply to amend the restraining orders if circumstances should make that appropriate. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.