Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - indecent photographs of children contrary to the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.

[2013]JRC074

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 April 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu, Morgan, Marett-Crosby, Nicolle and Olsen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jonathan Richard Godson

William John Crowley

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2013, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Jonathan Richard Godson

11 counts of:	Possession of indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(b) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19).
9 counts of:	Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18 and 20).
1 count of:	Inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(c) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 21).
1 count of:	Distributing indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(c) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 22).
2 counts of:	Conspiracy to distribute indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(c) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 23 and 24).

Age:  49.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In March 2012, a warrant was executed at Godson's address and a number of computer and related exhibits were seized.  Godson was arrested and interviewed. 

In interview Godson immediately admitted downloading indecent images of children, saying that his previous conviction (in the UK) for possession of such images had given him "the opportunity to explore it further".  He admitted to downloading and viewing all levels of images involving children from pre-school age upwards. 

Godson denied having committed any contact offences, for fear of consequences.  He described commission of a contact offence as his ultimate goal or fantasy.  He admitted to having communicated with children (or individuals he believed were children) online. 

Godson also admitted to being a member of a number of paedophilic internet forums.  In relation to one of these (KOFD, Count 23), he admitted to having been an administrator and to having removed all data from the site when he discovered it was being investigated.  He said that KOFD contained mainly level 1 images and that, as administrator, he had been responsible for enforcing rules, moderating forums and controlling membership.  He admitted that he was also administrator of a second paedophilic website (Count 24) and had membership of several more. 

Godson admitted to using encryption software and provided the relevant passwords to the police.  He maintained that his main interest was in level 1 "posing" images, but admitted that he downloaded images of all levels. 

Godson was released and the seized exhibits were forensically examined.  One of the exhibits was manually searched, the remainder being electronically scanned for known indecent images of children.  Unallocated area and deleted items were not searched, meaning that hundreds of thousands of images remain unexamined. 

A total of about 70,000 images were found with about 10,000 of these being at Levels 4 and 5.  About 700 movies were also found.  The images were partially filed in a detailed and organised filing system. 

Also discovered was evidence of distribution of images and that Godson had incited an individual he believed to be a female child to send images to him (Count 21).  Chat logs of conversations purporting to describe or organise the real-life abuse of children were found, along with an encrypted back-up of the KOFD site, including forum message.  Two of the forum messages were salacious postings by Godson regarding local teenage girls. 

Godson was rearrested and interviewed.  He admitted to using wiping software on his computer daily and to having posted indecent images of children on various sites.  In particular he admitted to having distributed more than 1,000 Level 4 images (Count 22).  He admitted that a Word document found during examination was essentially an "application" to join a paedophilic web forum. 

Godson again admitted to downloading and viewing all levels of images, saying that he had a "Mr Hyde" side and that he "disassociates" in order to avoid being affected by the children's distress. 

In relation to forum postings, he denied that any of the events he described had happened or that he intended to follow through on any of the purported plans to abuse children.   He described his behaviour as "ramping it up". 

The making charges relate to images downloaded by Godson whilst in Jersey.  The possession charges relate to images that were downloaded prior to his arrival in the Island, or whose creation date cannot be ascertained. 

 

Possession counts totals

Images

Copine scale	Still images	Percentages
Category 1	12,215	61.8%
Category 2	973	4.9%
Category 3	3,923	19.9%
Category 4	2,468	12.5%
Category 5	180	0.9%
Total	19,759

 

Movies

Copine scale	Moving images	Percentages
Category 1	2	5.3%
Category 2	4	10.5%
Category 3	15	39.5%
Category 4	16	50%
Category 5	1	3.9%
Total	38

 

Making counts totals

Images

Copine scale	Still images	Percentages
Category 1	28,081	56.2%
Category 2	3,001	6%
Category 3	9,460	18.9%
Category 4	8,389	16.8%
Category 5	1,076	2.2%
Total	50,007

 

Movies

Copine scale	Moving images	Percentages
Category 1	106	15.3%
Category 2	97	14%
Category 3	133	19.2%
Category 4	336	48.4%
Category 5	22	3.2%
Total	694

 

Breakdowns by Count

1. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	2,160
Category 2	0
Category 3	0
Category 4	0
Category 5	0

 

2. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	138	1
Category 2	48	0
Category 3	28	0
Category 4	104	0
Category 5	1	0

 

3. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	1,010	1
Category 2	170	3
Category 3	232	6
Category 4	136	5
Category 5	3	1

 

4. Making indecent images of children 

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	20,181	102
Category 2	2,263	95
Category 3	6,788	127
Category 4	5,878	304
Category 5	747	18

 

5. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	3,278	0
Category 2	152	0
Category 3	883	0
Category 4	960	2
Category 5	73	0

 

6. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	6,436	3
Category 2	448	2
Category 3	2,239	6
Category 4	2,068	30
Category 5	280	4

 

7. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	480
Category 2	97
Category 3	142
Category 4	219
Category 5	12

 

8. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	1,226
Category 2	213
Category 3	383
Category 4	325
Category 5	48

 

9. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	84
Category 2	1
Category 3	1
Category 4	4
Category 5	0

 

10. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	10
Category 2	0
Category 3	4
Category 4	3
Category 5	0

 

11. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	6
Category 2	0
Category 3	1
Category 4	0
Category 5	0

 

12. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	2,056	0
Category 2	218	0
Category 3	463	0
Category 4	179	4
Category 5	17	0

 

13. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	90
Category 2	29
Category 3	21
Category 4	14
Category 5	0

 

14. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	85
Category 2	0
Category 3	1
Category 4	1
Category 5	0

 

15. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	1,543	0
Category 2	162	0
Category 3	374	1
Category 4	377	1
Category 5	35	0

 

16. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	2
Category 2	0
Category 3	15
Category 4	6
Category 5	0

 

17. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	12
Category 2	1
Category 3	0
Category 4	0
Category 5	0

 

18. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images
Category 1	2
Category 2	0
Category 3	0
Category 4	0
Category 5	0

 

19. Possession of indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	1,497	1
Category 2	171	1
Category 3	545	8
Category 4	589	4
Category 5	51	0

 

20. Making indecent images of children

Copine scale	Still images	Moving images
Category 1	0	0
Category 2	0	0
Category 3	0	0
Category 4	2	2
Category 5	0	0

 

21. Inciting the distribution of indecent images of children.

Godson received 7 indecent images from a user over the Google Hello messaging program.

 

22. Distribution of indecent images of children.

Godson admitted distributing more than 1,000 Level 4 images over messaging software. 

 

23. Conspiracy to distribute indecent images of children.

Godson acted as administrator of a members-only website known as Kingdom of Future Dreams which had about 30 members who exchanges mainly Level 1 images.  He removed all the data from the site when he discovered it was being investigated.

 

24. Conspiracy to distribute indecent images of children.

Godson acted as administrator of a members-only website known as The Knoll which had about 30 members who exchanges mainly Level 1 images.

 

The Crown identified the following aggravating features:-

a. Exceptionally high number of images;

b. Distribution of a large number of images;

c. Two relevant previous convictions;

d. Salacious posting about local children to whom he had given lifts;

e. Organised and detailed filing system, indicating high level of interest;

f. The incitement offence involved encouraging a person who he believed to be a child to send images to him;

g. Attempts to conceal activities by e.g. using a Tor browser;

h. Offences started whilst he was still on the UK Sex Offenders Register.

 

Godson was assessed as being at medium risk of non-sexual reoffending and high risk of sexual reoffending.  He maintained to the probation officer that the images were "pseudo-staged" and "not real".  He showed no regret for his actions and said he was not willing to undergo sex offender treatment.  His employment history as reported to the probation officer consisted almost exclusively of jobs that gave him access to children. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Early guilty pleas; cooperative with the police. 

The Defence

Exceptionally cooperative and open with police.

Previous Convictions:

Five previous convictions.  The Crown disregarded convictions for burglary and arson as a teenager.  In 2005 he was convicted of two counts of possession of indecent images of children and was given a community rehabilitation order and placed on the Sex Offenders Register. 

Conclusions:

The Crown moved conclusion for the making and distribution Counts in accordance with the Guernsey case of Wicks-v-the Law Officers of the Crown.

It was submitted that the offences relating to the administration of websites (Counts 23 and 24) were of an essentially different nature to the others and warranted consecutive sentences. 

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	4½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 23:	4½ years' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 24:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 23.

Total: 10 years' imprisonment. 

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 10 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order under Article 10(4) with the following conditions, that for a period of 10 years following his release from custody:-

i)       he shall 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 accused's place of residence;

ii)      he is prohibited from owning or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

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

(b)        the accused ensures that such history is not deleted;

iii)      he is prohibited from being alone with any 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 accused's convictions.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and computer equipment sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

This case was heard at the same time as AG-v-Crowley and sentences were considered together.  Sentences were imposed at the hearing but reasons were given in a later judgment.

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 23:	2½ years' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 24:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 23.

Total: 8 years' imprisonment.

Court satisfied under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 10 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order granted under Article 10(4) with the following conditions, that for a period of 10 years following his release from custody:-

i)       he shall produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination, at any 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 accused's place of residence;

ii)      he is prohibited from owning or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

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

(b)        the accused ensures that such history is not deleted;

iii)      he is prohibited from being alone with any 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 accused's convictions; and

iv)      that in the circumstances where the accused finds himself alone with a child under the age of 16 and such contact has been inadvertent or unavoidable, he must remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably practicable.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and computer equipment ordered.

William John Crowley

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:  67.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police executed a warrant at Crowley's address and seized two computer towers.  He was interviewed and denied possessing or downloading indecent images of children.  No indecent images were found on the towers but it was clear that data had been downloaded onto external devices. 

Crowley rearrested and, when asked, told officers that he had an external hard drive hidden in the sofa.  As they were leaving the house, he revealed that a second hard drive was hidden in the vacuum cleaner. 

He was interviewed and told officers that they would fine "the worst you can possibly get" on the devices.  He said that he had started looking at indecent images of children some time ago and that his interest had grown despite his convictions and the time he spent in prison as a result.  He admitted that he had images of all levels.  At the end of the interview he expressed regret and said that he had hoped he could get away with it. 

Analysis of the hard drives revealed:-

Count 1 (2 terabyte hard drive)

Copine scale	Still images (unique)	Moving images (unique)
Category 1	52,036 (10,119)	93 (38)
Category 2	896 (304)	32 (12)
Category 3	1,936 (652)	17 (10)
Category 4	760 (376)	89 (46)
Category 5	107 (48)	4 (4)

 

Count 2 (160 gigabyte hard drive)

Copine scale	Still images (unique)	Moving images (unique)
Category 1	7,899 (2,971)	11 (11)
Category 2	10 (9)	4 (4)
Category 3	53 (48)	0
Category 4	34 (32)	6 (6)
Category 5	0	0

The Crown identified the following aggravating features:-

a. Exceptionally high number of images;

b. relevant previous convictions;

c. Organised and detailed filing system, indicating high level of interest;

d. Attempts to conceal activities.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea; cooperative in second interview; age and contents of social enquiry report (difficult childhood, including sexual abuse).

The Defence

Many duplicates; haphazard and obsessive collecting; remorse; acknowledgement that collecting such images drives demand; isolated, lonely and hopeless.

Previous Convictions:

Twenty previous convictions.

1989: Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, involving covertly filming female children at parks and beaches.

1995: Five indecent assaults and possession of indecent images of children, for which he received a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

2001: Two offences under the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 for which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

The Crown moved conclusions for the making and distribution Counts in accordance with the Guernsey case of Wicks-v-The Law Officers of the Crown.

Starting point 3 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment. 

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 10 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order under Article 10(4) with the following conditions, that for a period of 10 years following his release from custody:-

i)       he shall 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 accused's place of residence;

ii)      he is prohibited from owning or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

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

(b)        the accused ensures that such history is not deleted;

iii)      he is prohibited from being alone with any 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 accused's convictions.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and computer equipment sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The case was heard at the same time as AG-v-Godson and sentences were considered together.  Sentences were imposed at the hearing but reasons were given in a later judgment. 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Court satisfied under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 10 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order granted under Article 10(4) with the following conditions, that for a period of 10 years following his release from custody:-

i)       he shall produce to a police officer, forthwith on request for examination, at any 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 accused's place of residence;

ii)      he is prohibited from owning or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

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

(b)        the accused ensures that such history is not deleted;

iii)      he is prohibited from being alone with any 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 accused's convictions; and

iv)      that in the circumstances where the accused finds himself alone with a child under the age of 16 and such contact has been inadvertent or unavoidable, he must remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably practicable.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computer and computer equipment ordered.

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Godson.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for Crowley.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has been sitting this morning to hear two cases concerning the indecent images of children.  They are the two most serious cases so far to have come before the Court.  We have been asked to issue guidance for future cases and this we propose to do.  However, we will do this in a written judgment which will be released in due course.  It follows that we are simply going to announce very briefly the sentence today; the full reasons will follow later. 

2.        We want to begin by saying this.  As the Court has frequently said, offences which concern the downloading or possession of indecent images of children are not victimless crimes.  The offender, sitting in the privacy of his own room, watching images of children, is seeing something that has actually happened and which has imposed appalling suffering on the young children concerned, where those images relate to the higher Copine levels as they are described.  And we want to give just two examples taken from the facts of this case. 

3.        In the case of Godson, one of the images is described as follows - it is level 5 of the Copine scale, the worst level.  This image shows a naked female baby with its hands and wrists bound and a dummy in its mouth; an adult hand can be seen in the picture which is using an object resembling an adult sex aid to penetrate the baby's vagina. 

4.        In the case of Crowley, to take one example, again at Copine level 5, so it is at the highest level, it is described as follows - this image shows a female child of approximately 5 years of age wearing only white stockings.  She is lying on her back and her mouth has been gagged; her hands are tied to stakes and her legs have been pulled up towards her face by what appears to be rope, and a wooden bar placed behind her knees.  A large black dog is standing above her and penetrating her vagina with its penis. 

5.        Now, as I say, we repeat, those are some of the worst images and not all the images in this case are at that level.  Nevertheless, that emphasises why the Court takes such a serious view of this type of offending, particularly where it relates to the higher levels in the Copine scales. 

6.        Now we deal first of all with Godson.  We start by saying that the period before he can apply to be removed from the notification register under the Sex Offenders Law is 10 years. 

7.        Now Godson, you pleaded guilty to eleven counts of possession of indecent images of children, nine counts of making such images, one count of incitement to distribute such an image, and two counts of conspiracy to distribute such images.  The making charges relate to downloading images from the website and the possession charges relate to images which you had downloaded in England before you came to live in Jersey, and you brought those images with you.  The total number of images in your case is 70,498 of which 12,488 are at level 4 or 5 on the Copine scale.  So far as the making offences are concerned, that involved 50,701 images, of which 9,823 were at level 4 and 5, and as to the possession offences, they involved a total of 19,797 images, of which 2,665 were at the level 4 or 5. 

8.        The Court has decided that it will apply the guidance given in the case of Wicks and Ors-v-the Law Officers of the Crown (Guernsey judgment 14/2012), a decision of the Guernsey Court of Appeal.  So that is the approach that we have applied. 

9.        We take firstly aggravating features.  The first one in your case is of course the number of images which you had collected over a 7 year period or so.  The second is distribution; you had distributed a thousand images at level 4; we do not take into account as an aggravating feature in relation to the making offences, the circumstances of Counts 23 and 24, which is where you administered two sites.  We sentence those separately because we are going to impose a consecutive sentence for those two counts.  Thirdly, as an aggravating feature, there is your previous conviction in 2003 for two similar offences in relation to indecent images, and the fact that you were on the UK Sex Register. 

10.      In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea; we accept what your advocate has said that you were very cooperative and we give you full credit for the guilty plea and the cooperation. 

11.      Applying those factors, the sentences on the individual counts for possession are as follows:- Count 1; 6 months, Counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15; 2½ years, Count 17; 6 months and Count 19; 2½ years.  All of those concurrent.  So far as the making offences are concerned, Counts 2, 4, 6 and 8; 5½ years, Count 11; 2½ years, Counts 13 and 16; 5½ years, Count 18; 6 months, Count 20; 5½ years, all of those concurrent.  Count 21, the incitement; 3 years, concurrent.  Count 22, the distribution, 5½ years, concurrent.  On Counts 23 and 24, conspiracy to distribute, 2½ years, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other charges.

12.      Godson, the total sentence in your case is therefore one of 8 years' imprisonment. 

13.      We order the forfeiture of the computer equipment. 

14.      We make a Restraint order as applied for by the Crown for 10 years from the date of your release subject to the following amendments of what is before us. 

(i)        Godson produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination, at any time, any computer of any device which may access the internet,

And then as set out in the draft to us.  In paragraphs ii and iii we make them as requested but we insert a new paragraph iv:-

(iv)     where Godson finds himself alone with a child under the age of 16 and such contact has been inadvertent or unavoidable, he must remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably practicable.

15.      Now in the case of Crowley, we say that the period before he can apply to come off the notification register is 10 years.

16.      Crowley, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of making indecent images of children.  This involved a total of 63,731 images, of which 1,000 were at levels 4 or 5.  The vast majority in your case were at level 1.  The aggravating features include first the number of images, secondly the fact that you had taken careful steps to try and cover your tracks by hiding the hard drive in a sofa and another one in a vacuum cleaner, thirdly, and very significantly in your case, your previous convictions.  In 1995 for indecent assault on three female children you were sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.  You were also sentenced to 6 months for offences involving indecent photographs of children.  Then again in 2001, for further offences involving indecent photographs of children, you were sent to prison for 1 year.  So this is therefore the third time you are before the court in relation to indecent images of children.  Fourthly we note the careful organisation of the files in your case. 

17.      In mitigation we have taken into account your guilty plea at an early stage and we give you a substantial discount for that, and we also note, as put forward by your advocate, your remorse, your age, you are now 67, and the other matters he raised. 

18.      Nevertheless, in your case, the sentence is on Count 1; 5 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 5 years' imprisonment, both of those to be concurrent. 

19.      We order the forfeiture of the equipment.

20.      We make the Restraint orders as requested with the same alterations as in the case of Godson, and they are to last for 10 years from your release. 

Authorities

Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

Sentencing Guidelines Council Sexual Offences Guidelines.

AG-v-Horman [2008] JRC 187.

AG-v-R [2009] JRC 137.

AG-v-Green [2011] JRC 082.

AG-v-Cardy [2011] JRC 096.

AG-v-U [2011] JRC 219.

AG-v-De Nobrega [2012] JRC 182.

AG-v-Bourke [2012] JRC 205.

AG-v-Le Galle [2012] JRC 235.

AG-v-N [2013] JRC 052.

R-v-Oliver (2002) EWCA Crim 2766

R-v-Smith and Ors [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82.

Wicks and Ors-v-the Law Officers of the Crown (Guernsey judgment 14/2012).