Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC128

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th September 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ricci Pierre Sunderland

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:

Possession of indecent photographs of a child contrary to Article 2 (1) (b) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.

 

 

Age:     40.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Seven unlawful video clips were found on Defendant's computer, four of which were viewed by the Defendant.  Images in categories 2, 4 and 5 in the levels of seriousness identified in the leading case of R -v- Oliver and Ors (2003) 1 .Cr. App. R (S) 28 were present.  Records showed that the Defendant had viewed a clip in category 2 (lasting 25½ minutes) three times, two clips in category 4 (one lasting 12 minutes and one lasting 33 minutes) once each, a clip in category 5 (lasting 21½ minutes) twice.  All material had been downloaded from the internet.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. Expressed remorse.  Had limited amount of images, viewed over a very short period of time, no attempt to distribute, not sophisticated offending.  Delay in the matter being brought to Court.  Very good work record, however he lost his job as a result of the guilty plea.  Low risk of re-offending in a non-sexualised way, moderate risk of committing further sexual offences.  Difficulties in expressing himself.  Lack of relationships with women of his age.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment and forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment and other material seized.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 1:

4 months' imprisonment and forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment and other material seized.

 

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.G.P. Lakeman for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Sunderland, you downloaded seven video clips involving pornography with children and you viewed four of them.  Using the categorisations laid down by the English Court of Appeal and approved by this Court in A.G. -v- Le Marquand [2003]JRC043, you twice viewed a clip which falls within category 5, which is described as involving sadism or bestiality, and you also looked at a clip in category 4, which is described as involving penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.

2.        We accept that you merely viewed these clips, you did not show them to anyone or pass them on, but the Courts in England and in Jersey have made it clear that they will deal severely with offences of this nature, first of all to express society's repugnance at such pornography and secondly to condemn the corruption of young children which is involved in the making of such videos.  Those who, like you, view such products simply encourage the making of such pornography with the consequent involvement and corruption of young children.

3.        We do not accept for a moment your explanation that this was all accidental and your counsel has very realistically not pursued that aspect.  We also accept that we must deal with the matter as if the maximum sentence were three years. 

4.        We also accept that the offending was very much at the lower end of the scale in that there were very few clips and they were viewed over a short period in December 2003. 

5.        We want to comment on the delay.  You were arrested in January 2004.  This matter has been hanging over you since then.  We understand that there are demands on police resources for this very technical type of work, and Mr Yates has made it clear that we are going to hear other cases where there are likely to have been similar delays.  However, we wish to state that we do not think such delays are acceptable, and we very much hope the Chief Officer will take such action as is necessary to obtain additional resources so that these matters can be investigated with proper speed.  The fact that there has been such delay is a matter which inevitably impacts on sentence. 

6.        In mitigation, as far as other matters are concerned, we take account of your guilty plea, your good character, your very good work record and all the matters which Mr Lakeman has put before us. 

7.        The leading case in England, which we have applied in Jersey, gives a bracket of between 6 and 12 months' custody for possession of a small amount of level 4 or 5 material.  However, that is after a contested trial, in other words a not guilty plea, and takes account of the higher maximum sentence there.  It follows that on those figures, one is looking at a sentence of between 4 and 8 months' imprisonment on a guilty plea, whilst accepting, of course, that these are not rigid tramlines merely indicative guidelines.  Be that as it may, given the position here it seems impossible to conceive that there would ever have been any question of a sentence of more than 12 months.

8.         In the circumstances we think it is unfortunate that this case was committed up to the Royal Court.  It has lead to additional delay.  We urge the Magistrates to look carefully at these matters in the light of the authorities and themselves deal with matters where a sentence of 12 months or less is appropriate.  Clearly if they are uncertain whether 12 months' or less is appropriate they may wish to send it up, but where it is clear that the sentence should not exceed 12 months we would urge them to deal with such matters themselves.

9.        Taking all the matters into account, and in particular the small number, we think that the sentence of 6 months is too high because, as we say, that bracket is intended to cover a not guilty plea.  So in all the circumstances, we think the correct sentence is one of 4 months' imprisonment, and that is the sentence we pass.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the computer equipment and related material.

Authorities

R -v- Oliver and Ors (2003) 1 .Cr. App. R (S) 28.

AG -v- David Le Marquand [2003]JRC43.

AG -v- Rowe [2004]JRC217.