Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007.

[2016]JRC235

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 December 2016

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle and Thomas

The Attorney General

-v-

W

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 1).

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

As part of a sting operation a JEP reporter created a fake account on an adult dating website of an 18 year old girl, called Lucy.  He told users who messaged Lucy that she was 14.  The defendant continued talking to Lucy despite being told her age. 

They spoke for twelve days during which time Lucy told the defendant on several occasions her age, that she attended school and lived with her parents and could therefore not just do what she wants.  The defendant persistently asked to meet up with Lucy.  The defendant also exchanged messages with Lucy which were of a sexual nature. 

Lucy agreed to meet the defendant at Winston Churchill Park, St Brelade, and the defendant rode a bus to the park whereby the reporter sat on the same bus.  The defendant sat on a bench and waited for Lucy.  The following day the JEP reported the sting operation and the police were made aware of all the users including the defendant who were talking to Lucy. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, good character, genuine remorse and good references. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment.

Order under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 5 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements to commence from the date of sentence sought. 

Restraining Orders sought from the date of sentencing for a period of 5 years under Article 10(4) with the following conditions:

i)              That the defendant produce to a police officer forthwith on request for examination, at any time, any computer or device which may access the internet, or any device which can store images electronically, which belongs to him or is in his possession, it being noted that such a request may be made anywhere, including by the police attending at the defendant's place of residence;

ii)             That the defendant is prohibited from owing or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

a.     It has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use;

b.     The defendant ensures that such history is not deleted;

iii)            That he is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact, via any form of social media, internet or telecommunications system, any female he knows or believes to be under 16;

iv)            That he is prohibited from being alone with any female child under the age of 16 years, aside from such contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable. They will be considered to be alone if there is not a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21 and who is aware of the accused's convictions, and who themselves have not been convicted of any offence which would render them liable to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010; and

v)             That where he finds himself alone with a child under the age of 16 and such contact has been inadvertent or unavoidable, he must remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonable practicable. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

9 months' imprisonment.

Order made under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 2 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements to commence from the date of sentence. 

No Restraining Orders made.

R. C. C. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced today for one count of sexual grooming, having communicated on at least two occasions with a person who you believed to be a female child aged 14 and having then arranged and travelled to meet her.  You were apprehended as part of what is known as a "sting" operation because you were communicating not with a 14 year-old girl but with a journalist operating a false profile over the internet. 

2.        There is no doubt from the documentation that we have seen that the girl who you supposed you were communicating with, identified at an early stage that she was only 14 years of age and repeatedly made references to her age and to her circumstances in a way which must have emphasised to you that you were dealing with what appeared to be an inexperienced minor child. 

3.        That notwithstanding, you persisted in making highly sexual suggestions to her and ultimately arranging to meet.  Any attempt to groom a minor for sexual purposes is extremely serious and, in our view, a custodial sentence is almost inevitable.  Naturally in this case, no child was in fact put at risk or was ever going to be assaulted as a result of this communication.  Whilst we must view the correct sentence in that light, and we do, the offence is nonetheless a serious one. 

4.        The Jersey cases put before us involved contact offences as well as grooming offences.  In fact the two cases put before us have suggested a range of 2 to 2½ years as potentially appropriate for grooming a girl aged14.  The Crown has also referred us to English cases.  In the case of R-v-Copley [2016] EWCA Crim 894, in connection with a sting operation, the Court of Appeal said the fact that no actual grooming of the child was performed and no harm was or indeed could have been done to any child as a result of those actions has to be reflected in a substantial discount on the sentence that would have been appropriate for the full offence.  The Court of Appeal in that case however went on to say that it could not agree with the conclusion contained in the probation report in that case that a non-custodial sentence would have been appropriate and it imposed a 12 month sentence.  In R-v-M.S. [2008] EWCA Crim 600 a 27 year old man contacted who he believed to have been a 14-year old girl.  Conversations between them became sexual and they arranged to meet and the man suggested they "go all the way".  From an initial sentence of 30 months this was reduced to 16 months on appeal with the Court of Appeal stating:

"Of course, the grooming of children for sexual purposes is a serious offence.  It is rightly accepted on behalf of the appellant that a prison sentence is inevitable."

5.        We have been referred at some small length to the guidelines that apply for offences in this nature in the courts of England and Wales.  We are a Jersey court sentencing in Jersey and we therefore do not pay direct regard to the guidelines as set out in the cases in terms of the correct level of sentence.  However, the guidelines do identify factors that we are entitled to take into account if they appear to us to be appropriate factors. 

6.        You have very substantial mitigation available to you.  You have, firstly, your guilty plea.  You also have, as your counsel has said, a positive good character in as much as not only do you have no previous convictions but you have an excellent employment record and the support of your family and friends and the letters that they have sent point to a person of a positive and good character. 

7.        We note also the remorse that you have expressed both in your letter and through counsel and we accept that remorse is genuine.  We doubt that you will find yourself in a similar situation again. 

8.        In the circumstances we have considered first the notification requirements detailing the time which must pass before you can apply to be removed from the notification requirements in the Sexual Offenders Law.  We consider and have taken the view that the risk identified by this behaviour in all the circumstances is not of the highest and we think that the correct period to apply in this case is 2 years. 

9.        We turn now to the Restrictive Order.  Because of the view that we have taken as to the risk that you pose, and the effect that such an order might have on your employment, in our view this is not a case at all for restrictive measures. 

10.      We turn now to sentence.  Notwithstanding what we have said about risk, we view this as a serious matter and in our view there is no circumstances identified to us which would cause us to impose anything other than a custodial sentence.  You are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

R-v-Copley [2016] EWCA Crim 894.

R-v-M.S. [2008] EWCA Crim 600.

AG-v-De Nobrega [2012] JRC 182.

AG-v-DS [2009] JRC 213.

R-v-Barnett [2007] EWCA Crim 1625.