Jersey Unreported Judgments

Application to be removed from the Sex Offenders Register

[2023]JRC017

Royal Court

(Samedi)

25 January 2023

B

-v-

The Attorney General

IN THE MATTER OF B

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 5(5) OF THE SEX OFFENDERS (JERSEY) LAW 2010

Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Applicant.

Advocate L. Taylor for the Attorney General.

ex tempore JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The Applicant applies for the notification requirements imposed on him under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 to be lifted.

2.        The first issue is whether this application should be heard in private with an anonymised judgment subsequently being issued.  We have reminded ourselves of the guidance issued in the case of A v AG [2020] JRC 004 and note that the Attorney General does not oppose this hearing being held in private.  Having regard to the factors mentioned in A v AG and the nature of the evidence before us we agreed that the hearing should be in private.

3.        The background is that the Applicant pleaded guilty some years ago to an offence of indecent assault.  This consisted of touching the 14 year old victim over the victim's clothing and, in terms of gravity, the offence was described by the sentencing court as being at the bottom end of the scale of indecent assault.  The period before which the Applicant could apply for the notification requirements to be lifted expired in 2021 and the Applicant now makes this application. 

4.        Since his conviction the Applicant has been managed by the Offender Manager Unit ("OMU") of the States of Jersey Police.  However the Applicant moved to the UK some four years ago and accordingly has also been the responsibility of the local equivalent of the OMU in the part of the country to which he has moved.  The Court has received a report from the OMU and also a report from the Probation Service.  It is clear from both these reports that the Applicant, who was a young man when he committed this offence, has since matured and is now leading a pro-social life.  The reports show that he complied fully with the requirements of the non-custodial sentence which was imposed by the Court and that since moving to the UK he has maintained stable employment and accommodation.  He also has a supportive family and a pro-social group of friends.

5.        The OMU and the Probation Service jointly carried out an assessment in preparation for this hearing in order to assess the risks of the Applicant reoffending.  The result of that was that the Applicant was assessed as being at low risk of reoffending both sexually and more generally.  This accords with the OMU report which reports that there is no intelligence or evidence to suggest that the Applicant has reoffended or has any inclination to reoffend.

6.        Article 5(6) of the Law provides the Court must not lift the notification requirements:

"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."

The victim of the Applicant's offence has been contacted and has no concerns about the notification requirements being lifted.  Furthermore the Attorney General accepts that the imposition of the notification requirements is no longer justified. 

7.        In view of the contents of the reports that we have referred to and their assessment that the Applicant is at low risk of reoffending, we agree with the Attorney General that the risk of the Applicant committing further sexual offending is such that maintaining the notification requirements is not justified.  We therefore lift the requirement with immediate effect.  

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

A v AG [2020] JRC 004