Inferior Number Sentencing - indecent images - reasons
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Christensen MBE and Berry |
The Attorney General
-v-
Matthew William Laverty
Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. On 28 February 2025, we sentenced Matthew Willliam Laverty (-œthe Defendant-) with regard to 3 counts of making indecent images of children contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994. There were 2,011 indecent images, 264 of which were Category A.
2. On 8 November 2023, the police attended at the Defendant's address at which time a number of electronic items were seized. The items contained images showing children ranging in age from 2 years upwards and featured both males and females although predominantly the indecent images were of female children. There were moving indecent images of what might be described as extreme footage including bestiality and bondage.
3. The search terms identified from the seized electronic equipment indicated that the Defendant was intentionally searching for sexual images relating to children. Two particular storage media were investigated and formed the basis of the counts on the indictment. A tower computer was examined and found to contain 11 still and 190 moving images of Category A; 66 still and 78 moving images under Category B; and 1,459 still images and 131 moving images under Category C. The earliest indecent image was created on 8 March 2014 and the latest on 7 October 2023. An SD card was also seized and contained 63 Category A still images, 7 Category B still images and 6 Category C still images.
4. The Defendant was interviewed on the date of his arrest and denied using certain software to download indecent images and otherwise answered -˜no comment' about whether there were indecent images on the tower computer. He was subsequently interviewed again after the computers had been examined, on 31 July 2024. In response to being told what the examination of the computers had disclosed, he explained that he was in -œa bad place- and suffering from depression. He continued to answer -˜no comment' about the software used and indeed the search terms found on the web browser. He indicated that he had not realised there were so many images and denied that viewing the images gave him any sexual gratification and said that he felt sick after viewing them. He further denied using erasing software found on the computer to remove indecent images claiming that he used it only to clean the device.
5. In moving conclusions, the Crown has applied the principles set out in AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091 and the principles are well known and we do not need to set out those principles in detail here. They work on the assumption that the offender is an adult, there are no relevant previous convictions, the number of images is small, the making of images were for the offender's benefit alone and that the sentencing process came from a contested trial.
6. In this case, the number of images was not small. Godson defined a small number of images as under 100 and in this case, the Defendant had 2,011 indecent images, 264 of which were in the highest category. There had been no contested trial, however, because the Defendant had entered guilty pleas to all offences at the earliest opportunity.
7. The Crown submitted that the number of indecent images and the period over which they were possessed and collected (some 9½ years) are aggravating features and it is appropriate to reflect those features in an adjustment upwards of the initial figure for images of this nature. The Defendant would receive full credit for a guilty plea.
8. The Defendant is assessed as at low risk of re-conviction in the following 12 months and at moderate risk thereafter of sexual re-conviction. In addition, for the benefit of his early guilty pleas, we note that he made admissions in interview concerning the ownership of the devices and was co-operative with the police by providing passwords.
9. The defence argue that although the initial starting point of 3 years is appropriate with regard to Count 1, the most serious of the offences, the addition of one year which the Crown has included in its conclusions was not justified. The defence emphasised, as we have already mentioned, the Defendant's co-operation and provision of passwords when the police attended and his co-operation throughout investigation. He is deeply remorseful, and we accept that that is the case, and we also accept that he has experienced suicidal ideation. We note that members of his family are still supporting him and we also note that he has already suffered significant financial consequences as a result of his offending. He has, whilst on remand, engaged with the prison regime and works in the garden and he wants to address and put right his offending behaviour.
10. Although the Defendant is otherwise of good character, as the Court has said on many occasions in the past, that is true for many who commit offences of this nature and the weight given to good character is not as high as it might otherwise be in a different type of offending.
11. In the light of the mitigation available to the Defendant, we felt able to make a modest reduction from the conclusions moved for by the Attorney General which were right, in our view, in principle.
12. In the circumstances, the Defendant was sentenced as follows:
(i) Count 1 (Category A) - 2 years and 2 months imprisonment
(ii) Count 2 (Category B) - 10 months imprisonment
(iii) Count 3 (Category C) - 6 months imprisonment
All concurrent, making a total of 2 years and 2 months imprisonment.
13. We ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the electronic devices found to contain indecent images and by consent we reserved all other ancillary matters under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and gave directions for the hearing of those ancillary matters on a subsequent occasion.
Authorities
Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.
AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091.
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.