ο»Ώ
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Christensen MBE, Austin-Vautier, Le Cornu, Entwistle and Berry |
The Attorney General
-v-
Richard Louis Romeril
Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. On 29 November 2024, we sentenced Richard Louis Romeril (-the Defendant-) in respect of a number of sexual offences taking place over a 10-year period against a young girl (-A-).
Count 1 - indecent assault (in which the Defendant rubbed his penis on the buttocks of A then aged 4) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 2 - indecent assault (in which the Defendant rubbed his penis on the buttocks of A on at least five occasions between the ages of 4 and 7) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 4 - indecent assault (in which the Defendant rubbed his penis on or around the vagina of A on at least 5 occasions when she was aged between 6 to 7) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 6 - indecent assault (in which the Defendant licked the vagina of A on at least 5 occasions when she was between 10 and 11 years of age) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 8 - sexual touching without consent (in which the Defendant licked the vagina of A on at least 5 occasions when she was between 11Β½ and 12Β½ years of age) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 10 - sexual touching without consent (in which the Defendant licked the vagina of A on at least 5 occasions when she was between the ages of 12Β½ and 14) - 8 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 12 - causing a sexual act without consent (in which the Defendant masturbated with A's hand when she was between the ages of 12Β½ and 14) - 8 years concurrent to Count 14;
Count 14 - attempted rape (in which the Defendant attempted to rape A when she was around 13 years of age) - 15 years 6 months imprisonment;
Count 15 - attempted rape (in which the Defendant attempted to rape A in the anus when she was around the age of 13) - 15 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 14;
Count 16 - attempted sexual penetration (in which the Defendant attempted to penetrate A's vagina with his finger when she was around the age of 13): 15 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 14.
Making for Counts 1 to 16 a total of 15 years 6 months imprisonment.
2. The Defendant also fell to be sentenced for a number of counts of making indecent images of children or prohibited images of children and was sentenced as follows:
Count 17 - making 269 Category A images of children - 12 months imprisonment consecutive to Count 14;
Count 18 - making 300 Category B images of children - 7 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 17;
Count 19 - making 3,444 Category C images of children - 2 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 17;
Count 20 - making 220 prohibited images of children of which 62 were moving - 7 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 17.
Making for all counts a total of 16 years 6 months imprisonment.
3. We also made a number of orders including a restraining order under Article 10(4) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 (-the 2010 Law-) with a period of at least 20 years before the Defendant can apply to be removed from the Sex Offenders' Register and other orders for the same duration. In addition, the Court made an order for an indeterminate period prohibiting the Defendant from approaching or contacting A directly or indirectly. The orders made ancillary to the sentence were those moved for by the Crown.
4. The sentences largely followed those that were contained in the Attorney General's conclusions with the exception that with regard to Count 14, on the indictment the Attorney General had moved for a period of 16 years 6 months and the Court, as stated above, imposed a sentence of 15 years 6 months. At the time of handing down our sentence we indicated that we would give reasons on a later occasion. These are those reasons.
5. The broad statement of the factual matrix covered in the counts as set out above makes it unnecessary to go into too much detail with regard to the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that A began to be the victim of sexual abuse by the Defendant when she was 4 years of age and continued for a period of approximately 10 years.
6. The Defendant sexually abused A by rubbing his penis on her buttocks between the ages of 4 until she was aged 6/7.
7. When A was aged 6/7 the Defendant escalated the sexual abuse and progressed to rubbing his penis around the outskirts of A's vagina. He would place A on top of him, face her towards him and place his penis between her legs and rub it against her clitoris.
8. A suffered from urinary tract infections throughout her childhood and her symptoms were first reported when she was aged 6. They included genital soreness, wetting herself in the daytime and urinary frequency, abdominal and back pain.
9. The Defendant, between 30 November 2017 and 23 November 2018 at that time escalated his sexual abuse of A by licking her clitoris and vagina. She, in her evidence, gave graphic details as to her memories of this which we do not need to repeat in these reasons. There were other instances of abuse covered by the other counts in the indictment and over various periods including as has been set out above, the Defendant using A's hand to masturbate himself, attempted vaginal rape, attempted anal rape and sexual penetration with a finger without A's consent.
10. Some weeks after Christmas 2022, A missed her period and became increasingly concerned that she might have become pregnant. She confided in some friends that she was worried.
11. On 7 March 2023, A went, together with a friend, to Brook, a confidential sexual health service so she could take a pregnancy test. The test was negative. Her non-attendance at school for that appointment, however, resulted in the school contacting A's mother and this resulted in A telling her mother that she had been sexually abused by the Defendant. A's mother contacted the States of Jersey Police within minutes to inform them of that disclosure and A was interviewed some two days later in March 2023.
12. The Defendant was arrested the following day and transported to police headquarters. During the search of the Defendant's bedroom, police officers found a number of items including a towel that the victim said the Defendant masturbated into, Durex lubricant and a total of 13 pairs of children's pants, 11 of which were found underneath the Defendant's mattress. The pants were sent for forensic analysis and the Defendant's seminal fluid was found on two pairs of them.
13. During the search of the Defendant's accommodation, the police seized a total of 32 electronic and/or storage devices, a digital examination of which identified illegal or prohibited images of children. A proportion of the indecent images recovered from the Defendant's devices indicated an interest in -Nymphelita/Nymphelita leaked video/Nymphelita Pornhub/Nymphelita Only Fans leak-.
14. The Defendant in all police interviews denied that he had touched A inappropriately and claimed that he was not attracted to young children but rather to women of between 20 and 40 years of age. When asked whether there would be illegal images of children on his computer he said -not that I know of- and -there shouldn't be-. Eventually in a further interview, he accepted that the illegal images of children were his responsibility saying that he needed help but he denied that he had ever watched the videos in the company of anyone else.
15. On 8 December 2023, on arraignment, the Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 17 to 20 (illegal and prohibited images of children) as set out in paragraph 2 above, but pleaded not guilty to Counts 1 to 16 (various sexual offences).
16. The Defendant maintained his innocence of the latter offences and the matter went to trial and he was convicted on 18 June 2024 following an Assize trial of the offences set out at paragraph 1 above.
17. The Crown put before us the case of K v Attorney General; Attorney General v F [2016] JCA 219 which concerned the sexual abuse of a child. The Attorney General of the day moved that certain contact sexual offences in terms of sentence appeared to be materially lower than equivalent offences in England and Wales. The Royal Court's conclusions on the approach to sentence were summarised by the Court of Appeal in that case as:
-(i) Jersey is a separate jurisdiction and the courts are entitled to fix their own sentencing levels. The Royal Court is not in any sense bound by the SC Guidelines.
(ii) The analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors which is frequently set out in the SC Guidelines often, perhaps even usually, provides a convincing rationale for the assessment of the seriousness of the offending which can conveniently be adopted in Jersey.
(iii) The Court would be influenced by the sentencing levels envisaged by the SC Guidelines when considering the conduct of K because it considered the sentencing levels to be correct for that conduct.
(iv) The Court should decide on the appropriate sentence for the offence before it in every case, and it did not follow that because the SC Guidelines were helpful in the case of K, they would always be helpful to enable the Court to arrive at the correct level of sentence for that particular offence in the jurisdiction of Jersey.
(v) There was no reason in principle why it should be thought right for Jersey to impose lower sentences for an offence as committed by K than would have been imposed in England and Wales.-
18. The Court of Appeal went on to emphasise that the sentencing levels set out in the Sentencing Council Guidelines of England and Wales were not applicable in Jersey and went on to state:
-It is for the Jurats to settle upon the sentencing policy they consider to be right. They may wish to have regard to the sentencing levels in England and Wales but there is no presumption that these should be followed in Jersey for all the reasons set out at paragraph 28 above and if the Court chooses not to adopt such sentencing levels, there is no obligation to justify why it has not done so. The Court does not start from the premise that the Guidelines provide a prima facie correct level of starting points of sentencing ranges and indeed the rigidity of the Guidelines, with a direct consequence in some cases of what appear to be surprisingly severe sentences, demonstrates why in this jurisdiction that is not appropriate.-
19. The Court of Appeal also, however, made the following observations:
-The comments which we have made in this judgment suggest that the Royal Court may wish to review upwards sentences for indecent assaults involving digital penetration of children in future cases. That is not to say that sentences at this level will necessarily be appropriate for similar cases in the future. That will be a matter for the Royal Court to consider in the first instance, should such cases arise.-
20. The Crown has put before us a number of further cases including Attorney General v T [2017] JRC 169 in which this Court stated -
-The position now is that the Court has started a process of review of sentencing levels imposed for sexual offences by reference to the Guidelines. They were found to be of assistance in AG v K, and we found them of assistance in this case. We have not considered the Guidelines for other kinds of sexual offence, but if they are found to be of assistance, then defendants can expect to be sentenced accordingly.-
21. In Attorney General v S [2017] JRC 194A, the Court commented:
-...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.-
22. In Attorney General v W [2018] JRC 061, the Court commented that it found -reference to the guidance on harm, culpability and aggravating and mitigating features [in the SC Guidelines] to be of assistance-.
23. We have had the benefit of reports relating to A's mental health and the possible consequences of the abuse perpetrated upon her. It is noted that she has demonstrated real resilience in coping with what has happened to her but that this could change dramatically in the future. In her summary, Dr Jamie Connor, the author of the psychological report, indicated that A had provided enough information to predict that she was likely to experience ongoing post-traumatic stress effects and emotional distress that may require psychological intervention.
24. It was also clear that it was important that A avoid the risk, if possible, of seeing the Defendant or those connected with the Defendant again. This latter point is emphasised also in A's own statement to us.
25. We accept the Crowns' characterisation of the harm done to A in this case. We accept that there is a likelihood of a more complex trauma picture emerging over time, A had suffered from urinary tract infections, the abuse had been prolonged in nature and A was a child who was particularly vulnerable due to her very young age when the sexual offending began.
26. In terms of culpability, it is difficult for the Court to imagine a more serious abuse of trust. The Defendant also isolated A so it would be easier for him to abuse her.
27. In terms of aggravating features, we again accepted the Attorney General's assessment of those features. The offences took place in circumstances where A was entitled to feel safe and secure, the Defendant exploited the situation to commit the offences, he had sought to prevent A from making complaints when she was very young and the Defendant had watched pornography whilst with A although we accept he believed she was unaware of this.
28. In mitigation, it was argued by counsel for the defence that the Attorney General's conclusions of a total of 16 years 6 months imprisonment was simply too long. The Defendant had expressed remorse. It was confirmed that he would not be appealing against his conviction although he maintained his denial of the offending.
29. In summary, as we have indicated above, this was a prolonged abuse of A by the Defendant from a time when she was very young over a period of many years. It was an egregious breach of trust. The only explanation for the actions as far as we can ascertain was the Defendant's desire to prioritise his own sexual gratification and satisfy his prurient sexual interest in young girls.
30. The Defendant does not have the mitigation of a guilty plea to the sexual offences on the first indictment nor indeed do we find any evidence of true remorse. Remorse can only exist if there is an acceptance of wrongdoing and as the Defendant has not accepted his wrongdoing, A is denied the closure that such acceptance would bring.
31. We resolved, therefore, to meet this behaviour with what we viewed to be condign punishment. On the basis of the cases put before us, however, it seemed to us that the conclusions of the Attorney General were slightly too high and we imposed the sentence set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above and made the restraining orders asked for by the Crown.
32. With regard to Counts 17 to 20, the indecent and prohibited images of children, the Crown put before us AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091. We considered the presumptions in that case noting that the number of images was large and so the presumption of a small number of images did not apply. We also applied a full discount for a guilty plea. The Defendant was co-operative.
33. We agreed with the conclusions of the Crown and imposed the sentence for this offending in accordance with those conclusions.
Authorities
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.
K v Attorney General; Attorney General v F [2016] JCA 219.
Attorney General v T [2017] JRC 169.
Attorney General v S [2017] JRC 194A.
Attorney General v W [2018] JRC 061.
AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091.