Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Indecent assault - indecency

[2019]JRC025

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 February 2019

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Blampied, Ramsden, Thomas, Dulake and Nicolle

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian David Priestley

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded following conviction at Assize trial on 17^th January, 2019, on the following charges:

6 counts of:	Indecent assault (Counts 1,2, 3, 5, 7 and 9)
4 counts of:	Procuring act of gross indecency (Counts 4, 6, 8 and 10)

Age:  66. 

Plea: Not Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Count 1: Indecent assault

Victim 1 was aged 14 when the defendant told her he would give her a back massage.  She lay on her front with her pyjama top pulled up exposing her back.  The defendant straddled her and massaged her back, from her lower back and under the waistband of her pyjama bottoms.  The defendant was aroused, and he lent on her back so that she could feel his erect penis.  The defendant was wearing tracksuit bottoms but no top.  She could feel his erection through his tracksuit bottoms.  He was leaning on her for approximately 30 seconds although to victim 1 it felt longer.  Victim 1 was alone with the defendant, she was terrified.  She was frightened as to what else might happen.

 

Count 2: Indecent assault

Victim 1 now aged 17.  The defendant blocked her from leaving a room pinning her against a window.  She could smell alcohol on him.  He pressed his body against her and she could feel his erect penis against her right hip through his trousers.  He grabbed her left breast using his right hand under her top but over her bra.  He kissed her fully on the lips and tried to put his tongue in her mouth.  She turned her head away.  She did not consent to this behaviour.  She pushed passed him and left the room.

 

Counts 3, 5,7 and 9: Indecent assaults

Victim 2 was aged 15.  The defendant would meet her in a park as she walked to or from her home.  He would take her off the main route to a more secluded area where they sat on a bench.  He would kiss her on the mouth.  He would grope and touch her breasts but not under clothing.  This happened on 4 separate occasions.  Each occasion would last for 5 to 10 minutes.

 

Counts 4,6,8 and 10: Procuring acts of gross indecency

On each of the above 4 occasions the defendant would say to her "you can touch me if you want to".  She did not want to touch him.  He would take her hand and put it on him over his clothing.  She could feel through the defendant's trousers that he had placed her hand on his erect penis. 

 

The defendant was in a position of trust in respect of both victims.  There had been a gross breach of trust on his part.  Indecent assaults committed on victim 1 had been committed in her home which should have been a place of safety and security.  Both victims had witnessed the aggression and anger of the defendant.  Both were terrified of him.

 

Both victims provided Victim Personal Statements setting out how the offending and the experience of making their complaints and giving evidence had impacted upon them.  The effect of such experiences cannot be underestimated.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown:

The defendant pleaded not guilty and had been found guilty following trial.  He did not therefore have the credit available to a defendant who had pleaded guilty.   Not guilty pleas resulted in the victims having to endure the ordeal of having to give evidence and being subjected to cross examination.  The defendant maintained his innocence.  He did not therefore have the benefit of remorse. 

 

Previous good character save for minor offending.  The Crown relied upon AG v T [2009] JRC 228:  previous good character/ exemplarity conduct should not normally be given any significant weight in cases of this nature.

 

The Defence:

The Crown's conclusions were excessive.  The Defence referred to UK sentencing guidelines and submitted under those guidelines sentencing not exceeding 18 months imprisonment or community service order would have been appropriate.  Previous good character remained a mitigating factor.  The UK guidelines provided that being on bail for considerable period of time was a mitigating factor.  The Court invited to have regards to totality principle

Previous Convictions:

No insurance x 2

Driving without due care and attention

Malicious damage before Parish Hall.  Treated at trial as man of good character as subject to those previous matters.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 and Count 2.
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 7:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 9:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 10:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.

Total:  6 years' imprisonment.

Order sought that the defendant be subject to the notification requirements under Article 3 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 2010 for a period of 10 years from today's date.

Restraining order sought for 9 years to commence from today's date under Article 10(4) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 2010 with the following conditions:

(i)      that the defendant is prohibited from being alone with a female he knows or believes to be under the age of sixteen. He shall be considered to be alone if there is not present an adult over the age of twenty-one who is aware of his offending history;

(ii)     that in the circumstances where the defendant finds himself alone with any females under the age of sixteen, accidentally or inadvertently, he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as is reasonably possible;

(iii)     that the defendant must not approach, follow or have any contact, direct or indirect, with either the First or Second Complainant; and

(iv)     that if the defendant finds himself in contact with either the First or Second Complainant, then he must remove himself from that situation as soon as is reasonably possible.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years imprisonment.   

Order made that the defendant be subject to the notification requirements under Article 3 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 2010 for a period of 10 years from today's date.

Restraining order made for 8 years, to commence from today's date under Article 10(4) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 2010 with the conditions listed above.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        Mr Priestley you were convicted by the jury of two counts of indecent assault in respect of victim 1 and four counts of indecent assault and four counts of procuring an act of gross indecency in relation to victim 2.

2.        The court has heard of other alleged offending outside the jurisdiction in relation to victim 2 and in Jersey in relation to victim 1.  But you have not been convicted of these and it would be quite wrong for this court when sentencing you to take account of alleged offences of which you have not been convicted.  So we wish to make clear that we ignore all these other matters and we sentence you only for the offences of which you were convicted by the jury.

3.        In relation to victim 1 she was 14 at the time of Count 1 in 1993.  On that occasion you straddled her and massaged her back.  You did this in order to obtain a sexual thrill and you became aroused, making sure that she felt your erection through your trousers.

4.        The second count in relation to victim 1 was when she was 17, so she was by then no longer under age.  But on that occasion, in the circumstances described by the Crown Advocate, you pressed your body against her so that she could feel your erection, you grabbed her left breast under her top but over her bra, you kissed her on the lips and you tried to put your tongue in her mouth.  She did not consent to any of this.

5.        In relation to victim 2, the offences all took place in 2003 when she was 15.  You met her in the park on some four occasions, and on each occasion the same thing happened.  You would kiss her on the mouth and touch her breasts over her clothing.  You would then take her hand and put it on your groin over your trousers so that she could feel your erect penis.  Each meeting appears to have taken some five or ten minutes.

6.        You pleaded not guilty so that both victims have had to go through the ordeal of giving evidence before the jury.  You have therefore lost the discount, usually of one third, which you would otherwise have obtained for a guilty plea.

7.        In mitigation Advocate Jones has submitted that the sentence of 6 years moved for by the Crown is just too high.  He has referred to the fact that these offences did not involve digital penetration, or anything of that nature, and were for the most part over the victim's clothing.  He referred also to the fact that the Crown wrongly took account of what had occurred in England as an aggravating feature when this could not be done.  He was correct in that submission.  He pointed also to your good character and the fact that you have not committed any other offences since these comparatively historic offences.  He further referred to the delay in bringing this matter to trial.  He also referred to some English sentencing guidelines but we have to say we did not find these to be of any assistance.

8.        We have taken note of the points which Advocate Jones has made on your behalf.  But the fact remains that you were in a position of trust, particularly in relation to victim 1; that your offending has had a significant impact on these two women as disclosed in their victim impact statements; and that furthermore the court has said recently in the case of AG v S [2017] JRC 194A. 

"...we think the time has come to recognise that, following the K case, sentences for sexual offending against children are likely to attract higher sentences than would previously have been the case"

The court takes a firm view of sexual offences committed against children.  Apart from one count, these victims were still children albeit not of the youngest age.

9.        The background report categories you as being at moderate risk of sexual reconviction.  We are satisfied therefore that you pose a risk of serious sexual harm for the purposes of Article 10 of the law and we are going to make the Restraining Orders requested by the Crown for a period of 8 years from today's date.  Those restraining orders are as follows:-

(i)        That the defendant is prohibited from being alone with a female he knows or believes to be under the age of 16. He shall be considered to be alone if there is not present an adult over the age of 21 who is aware of his offending history:

(ii)       That in the circumstances where the defendant finds himself alone with any female under the age of 16, accidently or inadvertently, he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as possible;

(iii)      That the defendant must not approach, follow or have any contact, direct or indirect with either the first or second complainant;

(iv)      If the defendant finds himself in contact with either the first or second complainant accidently or inadvertently then he must remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably possible;

10.      We also order that 10 years is the period before you can apply to be removed from the notification requirements.

11.      Turning to sentence, we think it preferable to impose concurrent sentences applying a Valler uplift because there are two victims, rather than consecutive sentences as suggested by the Crown, as we feel that in those circumstances, because of the totality principle, it would result in an unduly low sentence being imposed for individual offences which does not reflect the gravity of those offences.

12.      The sentence is as follows:-

(i)        On all of the counts except Count 2 we impose a sentence of 5 years concurrent;

(ii)       On Count 2 because the complainant was by then an adult, we make a minor adjustment to reflect that she was no longer a child, so therefore the sentence on Count 2 is 4½ years' imprisonment concurrent, so that is 5 years in all.

Authorities

AG v S [2017] JRC 194A. 

AG v Brewster 2001/130. 

AG v T [2009] JRC 228. 

AG v W [2018] JRC 061. 

AG v T [2017] JRC 169. 

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law, 2010. 

Criminal Justice (Anonymity in Sexual Offence Cases)(Jersey) Law 2002.