Jersey Unreported Judgments

Application to be no longer subject to the notification requirements under the Sex Offenders Law

[2019]JRC232

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 December 2019

W

-v-

The Attorney General

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Applicant.

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

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is an application by W, who we will refer to as the Applicant that he no longer be subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 ("the Sex Offenders Law").

2.        The Applicant was made subject to those requirements upon conviction in 2014 of offences of indecent assault and procuring acts of gross indecency on a child aged 6 to 7.  He was sentenced in 2014 to 3 years imprisonment with the court ordering that 5 years should elapse before he could apply under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders Law to have the notification requirements lifted.  That period has therefore expired this year.  No restraining orders were imposed by the sentencing court. 

3.        The offences took place some 40 years before sentencing.  We are therefore concerned with offending which took place some 46 years ago.  The defendant has not offended in any other way during this period apart from minor driving offences.

4.        The sexual abuse entailed his digitally penetrating the victim and taking her hand and rubbing it along his penis outside his trousers. 

5.        Whilst continuing to deny this offending there has been no concerns over his behaviour whilst in custody and on release he returned to live with his wife.  Despite his age he works part time and as a couple they are self-funding.

6.        Using the SA07 form of assessment he scored 2 and is therefore assessed at a low risk of sexual reoffending.  The de-notification report's conclusion is that the Probation Officer is uncertain whether continued low level monitoring by the Offenders Management Unit will be of significant benefit with regard to reducing the likelihood of the applicant reoffending and of further enhancing public protection.

7.        The application is not opposed by the Attorney General.

8.        The test is set out in Article 5(6) of the Sex Offenders Law:-

"(6)     The court must not make the order applied for under paragraph (5) unless it is satisfied that the risk of sexual harm to the public, or to any particular person or persons, that the person subject to the notification requirements of this Law poses by virtue of the likelihood of re-offending does not justify the person's being subject to those requirements."

9.        In our view the continued imposition of the notification requirements are no longer justified or proportionate and we therefore grant the application.

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010