Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Le Galle [2012] JRC 235 (18 December 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_235.html
Cite as: [2012] JRC 235
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - making indecent photographs of children.
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Morgan. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Edward Jonathan Le Galle
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
2 counts of: |
Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1 and 2). |
Age: 20.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1:-
Between the ages of approximately 13 and 17 the defendant downloaded 119 images of underage boys to his home computer. 30 images fell into Copine category 4.
Count 2:-
Between the ages of approximately 18 and 20 the defendant downloaded a further 2,756 still images and 537 moving images of underage boys. 713 of these fell into Copine category 4 or 5.
Details of Mitigation:
Age; character; unusually high levels of insight into his offending and cooperation with the psychologist and probation officer; family support.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
1 year's youth detention. |
|
Count 2: |
2½ years' youth detention, concurrent. |
Total: 2½ years' youth custody.
From the date of release that the accused becomes subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 with restraining orders for a minimum period of 5 years to elapse before the accused is permitted to apply under Article 5(5) of the Law to be no longer subject to the notification requirements of the Law.
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010:-
1. That the defendant 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 can store images electronically, 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 defendant's place of residence.
2. That the defendant is prohibited from owning or having in his possession of having access to any device of accessing the internet unless:-
i) it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use; and
ii) the defendant ensures that such history is not deleted.
3. The defendant is prohibited from being alone with any male child under the age of 16 years, aside from such contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable. They will be considered to be alone if there is not a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21 and who is aware of the defendant's convictions.
Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and associated equipment sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Consumption of child pornography encourages its supply, in which real children are the victims of suffering and distress. Notwithstanding the personal mitigation, the quantity of category 4 and 5 material in this case meant custody was unavoidable.
|
Count 1: |
1 year's youth custody. |
|
Count 2: |
2 years' youth custody, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years' youth custody.
From the date of release that the accused becomes subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 with restraining orders for a minimum period of 5 years to elapse before the accused is permitted to apply under Article 5(5) of the Law to be no longer subject to the notification requirements of the Law.
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010:-
1. That the defendant 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 can store images electronically, 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 defendant's place of residence.
2. That the defendant is prohibited from owning or having in his possession of having access to any device of accessing the internet unless:-
i) it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use; and
ii) the defendant ensures that such history is not deleted.
3. The defendant is prohibited from being alone with any male child under the age of 16 years, aside from such contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable. Where such inadvertent or unavoidable contact occurs, the defendant must remove himself from such contact as soon as practicable. They will be considered to be alone if there is not a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21 and who is aware of the defendant's convictions.
Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and associated equipment ordered.
D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate D. V. Blackmore for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You have pleaded guilty to downloading 2,695 indecent still images of children and 537 indecent movies of children. Of the still images, 449 were at Level 4 and 8 were at Level 5 on the Copine scale and of the movies, 271 were at Level 4 and 15 at Level 5, so that is a total of 720 images at Level 4 and 23 images at Level 5. They are the more serious levels; the particular images which you downloaded included abuse of boys as young as 5 and included anal intercourse by an adult male with boys as young as 8 or 10. Of the images you downloaded, 119 were several years ago when you were 14 to 15; but the bulk of them took place in the last couple of years when you would have been 18 or 19.
2. As the Court has said on a number of occasions, these are not victimless crimes. Real children have been involved in the making of these disgusting pictures and they have been caused great suffering and distress in the making of those images. Those who watch these images and download them fuel the demand and encourage people to go on making such films and pictures.
3. You have been very frank and cooperative, both with the police and with those who have prepared reports. It is clear that you are sexually attracted to young boys; it is to your credit that you have owned up to this and these feelings and that you wish to do something to deal with this problem.
4. In mitigation you have pleaded guilty from a very early stage; you have been entirely cooperative and you have no previous convictions; we have read the letter from your mother, yourself and the other references; and the background report and the psychological report both recommend a non-custodial sentence to involve treatment through a Probation Order and Community Service.
5. The key factor here is your age. If you were an adult there would be no question whatsoever but that a custodial sentence would be imposed. The Court has said on many occasions that the downloading of material at Level 4 or 5 will attract a custodial sentence. But your advocate has urged that because of your age, this is an exceptional case and we should impose a non-custodial sentence. She has referred in particular to the recommendations in reports that you would benefit from receiving treatment.
6. The Court has considered her submissions very carefully. As you can tell from the time the Court has been retired, the Court has not found it a straight-forward decision at all. If you were younger or if the number of images had been much smaller, the Court might have been persuaded, but having looked at it carefully, we have concluded that, notwithstanding Article 4 of the 1994 Law, which we have of course considered, the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. The downloading of Level 4 and 5 material at this level and this quantity must attract a custodial sentence even in the case of a young man of your age with your background.
7. Nevertheless we very much hope that the one to one treatment which has been discussed in the reports can be offered in prison, even if it is not quite as effective, and that you can receive the treatment during the period of supervision which will take place after you are released. So we have come to the conclusion that we cannot avoid a custodial sentence. If you had been an adult the sentence of 2½ years moved for by the Crown would have been absolutely correct, whether that is measured by comparing it with the decision in AG-v-Maguire [2012] JRC 089 or by adopting the guidelines in the Guernsey case of Wicks and Ors-v-The Law Officers of the Crown (Guernsey judgment 14/2012), which would have had an initial point of 3 years increased for the amount of images and then reduced for the guilty plea and the other mitigation. 2½ years would have been the right outcome whichever way it was calculated. But you are not an adult and in our judgment greater mitigation should be allowed to take account of your age, and so it is on your age alone that we are reducing the conclusions.
8. The sentence of the Court is on Count 1; 1 year, on Count 2; 2 years, both of these to be concurrent and therefore the total sentence is 2 years' youth detention.
9. As to the other matters we must consider, the notification requirement is automatic. We agree that the restraining orders as put forward by the Crown are required and that the statutory conditions in the Law are met. We make Restraining Orders in the terms suggested except that in number 3, which at the moment reads as follows:-
"The defendant is prohibited from being alone with any male child under the age of 16 years aside from such contact which is inadvertent and unavoidable. They will be considered to be alone if there is not a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21 and who is aware of the defendant's convictions."
We insert a sentence in the middle which reads:-
"Where such inadvertent or unavoidable contact occurs, the defendant must remove himself from such contact as soon as practicable."
10. We order that the Restraining Orders last for 5 years from the date of your release and as to the notification order, you may not apply for its discharge until 5 years from the date of your release.
11. Finally we order the forfeiture of the computer equipment.
Authorities
AG-v-Maguire [2012] JRC 089.
Wicks and Ors-v-The Law Officers of the Crown (Guernsey judgment 14/2012).
Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.
AG-v-De Nobrega [2012] JRC 182.