Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC130

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th July 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle, Clapham, Le Cornu, Marett-Crosby and Bullen.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Roy Forno

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

4 counts of:	Inciting the making of an indecent photograph of a child, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children(Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1, 11, 12 and 23).
12 counts of:	Making an indecent photograph of a child, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children(Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20 and 25).
1 count of:	Inciting the distribution of an indecent photograph of a child, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children(Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 7).
1 count of:	Securing unauthorised access to computer material with intent to facilitate the commission of further offences, contrary to Article 4(1)(b) of the Computer Misuse(Jersey) Law 1995 (Count 14).
1 count of:	Securing unauthorised access to computer material, contrary to Article 2 of the Computer Misuse(Jersey) Law 1995 (Count 21).

Age:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1-12

These offences arise from Forno's behaviour towards nine girls aged between 10 and 13 years, and the charges were presented as specimens. Aged between 35 and 36 at the time of the offending, Forno communicated with the girls via MSN messaging and webcam.  Pretending to be a 14 year old boy he encouraged the girls to expose themselves to him via the webcam, and in some cases to perform sexual acts.  Sometimes the girls agreed (charged against the accused as making indecent photographs), on other occasions they declined (charged against the accused as incitement). 

Extensive transcripts, "chat-logs" were recovered from the girls' computers.  They show that Forno was manipulative and used carefully planned devious methods in his attempts, sometimes successful, to corrupt these children.  One child in particular became grossly sexualised by Forno over a short period. 

His methods included hacking into the computer accounts of friends of the children named on the Indictment, thus pretending to be those friends.  In that guise he would use peer pressure to encourage the girls to comply with the requests he was making of them using his other persons.  This gives rise to the computer misuse charges on the Indictment.  (In one case it was accepted that he had hacked into the account for no reason other than to annoy the child who owned it). 

Details of Mitigation:

Good character; guilty plea; co-operation with the police; voluntarily attending counselling/therapy, and good references. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 23:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 25:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court remarked on the grave effect the offending had on the children and their parents, and on the relationships between them.  The Court observed that this was a carefully planned series of offences which robbed children of their irreplaceable innocence. 

While intent on honouring the totality principle the Court nevertheless referred to the revulsion felt by right-minded people in response to this offending. 

The Court increased the conclusions in the following way:-

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 23:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 25:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Counts 1-10 concurrent but consecutive to Counts 11-25.

Total:  7 years' imprisonment. 

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for numerous offences under the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 and Computer Misuse (Jersey) Law 1995.  The Crown Advocate has described the Indictment which contains 19 offences to which the defendant has pleaded guilty as involving specimen charges which is no doubt correct, but we are sentencing the defendant for these offences alone. 

2.        Forno assumed the persona of a 14 year old boy and insinuated himself into online relationships with a number of pre-pubescent children aged between 10 and 13 on a social networking website.  Nine children in total are involved. 

3.        Forno's crimes were persistent, manipulative and devious.  Over a period of eight months he persuaded numbers of these children to perform sexual acts on camera for his own gratification.  The results have been devastating for many of them and for their families.  The children's innocence has been removed as has their trust in the adult world and their relationships with their parents and families have been gravely affected. 

4.        Forno is 37 and has no previous convictions; the offences were committed in the aftermath of the collapse of his marriage; he has co-operated with the enquiry and has pleaded guilty to the Indictment.  He has expressed shame and remorse for his actions.  The Court has received a number of testimonials as to the defendant's good character. 

5.        The Crown Advocate has drawn our attention to the Sentencing Guidelines, Council's definitive guidelines in the United Kingdom for offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but we find these guidelines to be of only limited assistance.  We are not dealing with an isolated offence.  We are sentencing for a determined and carefully planned series of offences which have blighted the lives of nine children and their families.  We are conscious that whatever sentence is imposed the lost innocence of these children cannot be restored.  The sentence of the Court must reflect not only the totality of the offending but also the revulsion felt by all right minded people for this corruption of children for the sexual gratification of the offender. 

6.        At the same time we have to take into consideration the maximum penalty laid down by the statute (which should, in the Court's view, be reconsidered by the legislature) and the fact that these offences are not right at the top of the scale.  We have considered carefully the totality principle and we are satisfied that the sentence that we are about to impose does not offend against that principle. 

7.        Forno, you have rightly expressed your shame and remorse for these crimes.  The Court cannot understand how a man of your intelligence and ability can have allowed himself to justify to himself this betrayal of innocence in relation to nine different children.  The Court hopes that you will indeed seek the help that you clearly need. 

8.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on Counts 1-10; the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are granted and you are sentenced as moved by him to 5 years' imprisonment.  On each of Counts 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23 and 25 you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.  On Count 14 you are sentenced to 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment, on Count 21 to 2 months' imprisonment, each of those sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences imposed on Count 1-10.  The total sentence of the Court is therefore one of 7 years' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Protection of Children(Jersey) Law 1994.

Computer Misuse(Jersey) Law 1995.

Sexual Offences Act 2003.