Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - making indecent photographs.

[2013]JRC117

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 June 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Jacob Leigh Bowey

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

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Jacob Leigh Bowey, also known as Paul Atreides, made 801 still images (109 at levels 4 and 5) and 1 indecent moving image of children. 

On 15^th September, 2010, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of engaging in internet "chat" with an underage girl involving the transmission of indecent images.  His home address was searched.  His brother was searched and computer equipment seized.  He was interviewed and gave "no comment" answers. 

Due to the amount of information on the computer devices (three terabytes) the analyst's report was not completed until 3^rd August, 2012.  Records of chat messages were found which showed communications between the defendant and a 15 year old girl in which he describes himself as a "pedo" and encourages her to take erotic photographs of herself and send them to him.  Indecent images were recovered, as well as evidence that the defendant had made Google searches for terms such as "preteen porn", had accessed the "Teenspot" chat website, and sites named "teenporngallery.net" and "preteenfotos.com".  A folder containing cartoon images of child pornography (which do not meet the criteria for indecent images of children) was found and contained images which showed children with adult bodies engaged in taboo, violent and graphic sexual activities.  Other, legal, pornographic images were discovered, covering various themes. There were self-made pornographic images and movies of the defendant with his girlfriend, including those where she is dressed as a schoolgirl and has a dummy in her mouth. 

The defendant and his partner were arrested and interviewed.  The defendant admitted that he had been looking at the illegal images and exonerated his partner from any involvement. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; good character; good working record and remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 21 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment sought. 

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse from 19th April, 2013, before the defendant is permitted to no longer be subject to the notification requirements. 

Restraining order sought under Article 10(4) of the 2010 Law with the following conditions:

i)       That the defendant produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination, at any 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. 

iii)      That the defendant is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact, via the internet, any female he knows or believes to be under the age of 16. 

iv)      That in circumstances where the defendant finds himself in contact with any persons covered by the further order just made, he has a positive duty to cease such contact and remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably possible. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment containing four counts of making indecent photographs of children. There were 801 still images and 1 indecent moving image of a child, made between September 2008 and April 2011, of which a number were at Oliver levels 4 and 5.  You are therefore an offender who falls within category 4 of the analysis in the Wicks-v-Law Officers of the Crown, the Guernsey case, which was approved in the Jersey case on AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 074, a decision of the Superior Number.  We have noted that these are guidelines and not tramlines, but the judgment in the Court in the Jersey case does show the Court should be considering a starting figure of 3 years' imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances and the starting point of 3 years' imprisonment is then revised up or down, according to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

2.        The starting figure reflects the view of the Courts that this is not a victimless crime.  Real children were involved in the making of these films and they suffered real damage.  Despite a careful review of the Social Enquiry Report the Court considers, in principle, that a custodial sentence is right. 

3.        We have looked at the aggravating factors which are set out in paragraphs 47-48 of the Crown's summary, and we think that the Crown has approached that in the right way and that therefore the 3 year starting point, which is envisaged by the Godson and Crowley case, should be increased, particularly we think because you continued to access this material after your first arrest.  That is the significant aggravating factor, although we also take into account that your failure to make immediate admissions did cast suspicion for longer on your girlfriend than would have been appropriate.

4.        We then look at the mitigating factors and note those that the Crown has taken into account.  We think the Crown has rightly given you credit for the guilty pleas and good character.  Indeed looking at the mitigation you have, which is substantial, it does emphasise what a personal disaster for you this offending has been.  You had a good job, you had no previous convictions and you now face a more uncertain future, but the Court is satisfied you are an intelligent man and you will find your way through it.

5.        We have given careful thought to the issue of delay which Mr Bell emphasised to us on your part.  We recognise that this is a matter which has been hanging over your head for some time.  But rather, in the same way as applies in some fraud cases, where the activity of the defendant in covering his tracks leads to delay in the forensic examination of bank accounts, or bank transfers or whatever it happens to be, to uncover the fraud, there is, it seems to us, inevitably going to be some delay in cases of this kind as well.  The greater the number of images which have to be analysed of course the greater the delay is likely to be.  And we note from the material put before us that there were 3 terabytes of images which had to be viewed.  Of course we've also noted that police were, at one stage, looking at a different focus in their investigation, for reasons which we understand, although we are not taking that material into account for the purposes of sentence.  

6.        Having regard therefore to all those factors, in summary we are left with four computers, a substantial number of images, 109 or thereabouts, at Oliver levels 4 and 5.  Given the fact that there was an aggravation of the offending by the continued offending after the first arrest, we think the Crown's conclusions are not at all unfair and you are sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count. 

7.        We also order that the computer equipment be forfeited and destroyed. 

8.        Now that leaves us with the question of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.  You have already been told that you are subject to notification requirements as a result of your conviction and those therefore apply as you have been notified.  The Court makes the restrictive orders which are set out at paragraph 54 of the summary.  These will appear in the Act of Court.  You have seen them and I do not need to list them again.  We add in that connection that we are satisfied that there is a moderate risk of sexual reoffending, which has been identified by the Probation Service, but we add that in so far as we have been looking at the restrictive orders, it is clear that there has been a real progression in your behaviour, from looking at cartoons, to looking at films and images of real children, and the Skype exchanges show that at least there is a risk of progression to contact offences as well.  The Court considers that you should take every opportunity which is made available to you in the prison to address these particular problems in your character, in order that you can do the best when you come out of prison to ensure that you do not fall prey to them again. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 074.

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

AG-v-Brookes [2012] JRC 026.

AG-v-Cardy [2011] JRC 096.