Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - making indecent photographs of children.

[2013]JRC106

Royal Court

(Samedi)

31 May 2013

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle and Milner.

The Attorney General

-v-

Victor Scott Langlands

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

4 counts of:

Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4).

Age:  62.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Early on 30^th August, 2012, police attended at the defendant's home address, where he lived with his wife.  A search team seized a number of electronic devices.  Four were subsequently deemed to be of interest, a Compaq computer (Count 1), a Western Digital Hard Drive (Count 2), a damaged Seagate Hard Drive (Count 3) and a Kingston USB memory stick (Count 4).  While the computer could access the internet, the other three devices were essentially used to store digital information. 

After being examined forensically it was established that he had made two hundred and sixty nine indecent images of children by downloading them, and two indecent movies.  Twenty eight of the images and one of the movies were in Levels 4 and 5 of the Oliver scale. 

When interviewed that day, before the main forensic examination was complete, the defendant said that he was the main user of the Compaq computer.  He admitted looking at pornography but denied downloading any indecent images.  The forensic examination showed that the images had been downloaded via a "peer to peer" file sharing software system.  This system had been deleted from the computer prior to examination.  Despite this, references to well-known child pornography search terms were recovered, indicating that anyone downloading such material would have been in little doubt as to its likely content.  Terms referring to ages "Lolita", "pedo", or "childlover" need little examanation.  Less well-known examples indicating illegal content are "PTHC" ("pre-teen hard core") and "1sm" (an online magazine specialising in nude pictures of underage girls). 

The forensic report shows that a programme called Wise Disk Cleaner had been used to wipe the memory of the devices.  The last occasion it had been used on the main computer was 26^th August, 2012, four days prior to his arrest.  This programme is in no way uncommon.  While it has removed images and movie files, the names of these files and links which have been opened or played sometimes remain. 

In his second interview on 24^th October, 2012, the defendant stated that there had been instances in the past where illegal images had "popped up", and he had immediately deleted them.  While admitting that he uses P2P software to download legitimate film and some adult pornography, he denied searching for or accessing sites with illegal content. 

He could not explain why the forensic analysis showed that the listings of movie files which had recently been played included both legitimate titles alongside several titles indicating illegal content.  He later conceded that he had seen "snippets" of illegal material but had deleted it, and that he had inadvertently clicked on indecent images five or six times.  Beyond that, he denied all knowledge. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; previous good character; good working record.  Now estranged from family.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment. 

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse from 12^th April, 2013, 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:-

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

ii)      That the defendant 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.

b)      The defendant ensures that such history is not deleted.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computers sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

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

Conditions (i) and (ii) of the restraining order under Article 10(4) granted. 

All conditions to be for 5 years from 12^th April, 2013.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computers ordered.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        I have to deal first of all with matters under the Sex Offenders Legislation (Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010).  As a result of the convictions for these offences the notification requirements under the Law automatically apply to you and we order that they should apply for a minimum of 5 years from 12^th April, 2013.  That means that that is the period in which you cannot ask the Court to dis-apply the notification requirements from you.  So you must realise that until the Court orders otherwise, the notification requirements continue to apply and you cannot ask to have them disapplied for 5 years. 

2.        You are assessed as being at moderate risk of sexual reoffending.  The Court is satisfied that you pose a threat of serious sexual harm within the meaning of the Law and therefore we are going to make the restrictive orders which the Crown has sought and which are not opposed by you through your counsel.  They are as follows:-

(i)        That you produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination, from time to time, any computer or device which may access the internet, or any device which can store images electronically, which belongs to you or is in your possession, it being noted that such a request may be made anywhere, including by the police attending at your place of residence.

(ii)       That you are is prohibited from owning or having in your 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.

(b)       You ensure that such history is not deleted.

And those restrictive orders will be in place for 5 years, again from 12^th April, 2013. 

3.        You are here to be sentenced on four counts of making indecent images of children.  Unfortunately these cases are coming before the Court with regularity.  The Court's sentencing policy is well settled by the Superior Number in the case of AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 and a custodial sentence is inevitable in all but the most exceptional of cases.  We do not think even in taking all factors into account that this case is exceptional.  There are a lot of features indeed which we see in a number of cases.

4.        In this case one is looking at four images at Oliver Level 5 and twenty-four images at Oliver Level 4 and that puts the case within category 4 of the Godson and Crowley case and leads us to take an initial figure of 3 years in custody.  We give you a full discount for your guilty plea; we think that you have very substantial mitigation.  We have taken into account, in particular, the public duty and work record and your previous good character, and your age, and the disastrous effect that this offending has had on your personal life and on your future life to come.  We do not consider, unlike the conclusions of the Crown, that there were significant aggravating features and indeed we have taken that into account for the purposes of the sentence which we are going to impose.  We note that no suspicion fell on your wife and also that the wiping software was used apparently for both adult and child pornography so we do not take account of the aggravating features which the Crown has identified. 

5.        We think that given the very substantial amounts of mitigation the right sentence is 12 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent, making a total of 12 months' imprisonment.

6.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the computer equipment listed in the charges. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091.

R-v-Oliver [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 28.

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

AG-v-U [2011] JRC 219.

AG-v-Cardy [2011] JRC 096.

AG-v-Kakarchev [2012] JRC 193B.

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

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