Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - making indecent photographs.

[2014]JRC040

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 February 2014

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

James Christopher Videgrain

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:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Over a six year period between 2007 and 2013 the defendant downloaded a total of 1429 indecent images of children (89 of which were movie files) as follows:

Count 1:  115 indecent images and 11 indecent movies to a mini computer.  31of these images fell into Copine categories 4 and 5.

Count 2:  314 indecent images and 65 indecent movies to an external hard-drive.  154 images fell into Copine categories 4 and 5.

Count 3: 826 indecent images and 9 indecent movies to a laptop computer.  252 images fell into Copine categories 4 and 5.

Count 4: 85 indecent images and 4 indecent movies of under-age children to a memory stick.  14 images fell into Copine categories 4 and 5.

After Police had seized computer equipment from the house where the defendant lived with his parents, the defendant handed himself in to the Police and was cooperative. He admitted downloading all of the indecent material. A proportion of the indecent material had been duplicated across the different pieces of computer equipment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

High levels of cooperation, previous good character, proactivity in seeking help to address his offending behaviour.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

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

Total: 2 years' imprisonment. 

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse from 14^th February, 2014, before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order sought for a period of 5 years 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 aof 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 devices sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In light of exceptional mitigation (including the fact that the defendant had sought help) the Court felt able to reduce the Crown's 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 made under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse from 14^th February, 2014, before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements.

Restraining order made for a period of 5 years 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 aof 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 devices ordered.

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

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has said repeatedly that the downloading of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime, particularly where the images are at levels 4 or 5 of the Copine scale.  Real children have been subjected to the depraved sexual practices which are shown in the films or the pictures, with all the suffering and damaging consequences which flow from that and those who download this material provide a market for the evil people who make these films and therefore they indirectly contribute to the suffering of these children.  That is why the Court has repeatedly said that, save in exceptional circumstances, a prison sentence will be imposed in such cases. 

2.        We are going to deal briefly with the notification requirements as we are invited to by the statute.  We say that you will be subject to the notification requirements for 5 years from the date of today.  We also make the restraining orders in the terms requested by the Crown Advocate, again for a period of 5 years from today. 

3.        Returning to the facts of this case, you downloaded 1,429 images over a 6-year period of which 391 were at levels 4 and 5, in other words, images which involved the serious abuse of children to which I have just referred.  Of these 391, 60 were movies.  We accept, as your advocate says, that it is possible that there is some duplication in the numbers but nevertheless the number remains in that region. 

4.        In accordance with the leading case of AG-v-Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 this suggests an initial point of 3 years.  We must consider whether there are aggravating features and whether there are mitigating features which vary that figure. 

5.        The only aggravating feature in this case is the number.  It is over three figures and therefore, technically, is a higher number than is envisaged in Godson; but we do note that it is not particularly high.  What Advocate Landick has said is that there is exceptional mitigation in this case so that we can impose a non-custodial sentence and we certainly accept that there is very powerful mitigation.  You have pleaded guilty; so do many others, but in your case you were extremely cooperative from the start.  The police described you as being commendably cooperative and the background report described you as being refreshingly candid.  The report makes it clear that you are really very remorseful and that this remorse is genuine.  You seem to have realised that the part you played by downloading this material really does contribute indirectly to the suffering of children.  You have an excellent work record of which we have read and we have seen the references.  Most significantly, you have also been voluntarily seeking help since your arrest and we commend you for that and it has had an effect on the sentence that we are going to pass. 

6.        We have also carefully considered the reports, the psychological report and the background report, the latter recommending a non-custodial sentence.  We have considered very carefully whether we can impose a non-custodial sentence but we have concluded that we cannot.  Those who download material at levels 4 and 5, in particular, must realise what they are doing and they must realise that it is a serious offence and it is likely to result in prison.  Only by adhering to that policy can the Court make clear society's disapproval of what has happened and do what it can to minimise the suffering of young children in future. 

7.        Nevertheless, we do accept that the mitigation in your case is extremely powerful.  Were it not for that, the Crown's conclusions would have been correct.  But we think that the mitigation is particularly strong in this case and therefore we are going to reduce the conclusions. 

8.        The sentence in your case is one of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on each count. 

9.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the equipment. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

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