Jersey Unreported Judgments

Hearing (Criminal) - application to be removed from the Sex Offenders Register.

[2019]JRC068

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 April 2019

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Blampied and Pitman.

Jason Yves Benest

-v-

AG

IN THE MATTER OF JASON YVES BENEST

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SEX OFFENDERS (JERSEY) LAW 2010

 

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On 20^th July, 2012, the applicant was sentenced to a period of 3 years' imprisonment in relation to Count 1 on the First Indictment for an offence of indecent assault.  Prior to that, because he had pleaded guilty, he was subject to the notification of the requirements and at the time of sentence the court also imposed a restraining order under Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 ("the 2010 Law").  The detail of the restraining order is not relevant for today's purposes.

2.        The applicant is applying to be released from the notification requirements under Article 5 at paragraphs (5) and (6) of the 2010 Law.  In the course of that application a legal issue has arisen to which we will turn in just a moment.  But in support of his application the applicant relies upon the de-notification reports which has been obtained from Detective Constable Steve Lynch and from Miss Janette Urquhart of the Probation Service, both of which reports recommend that the applicant be discharged from the notification requirements because he has consistently scored as being at a low risk of further sexual offending using the Stable & Acute 2007 and the other assessment tools which the organisations in question use. 

3.        The court is satisfied that he does therefore present a low risk of re-offending in sexual cases and more particularly for the purposes of Article 5(6) that the risk of sexual harm to the public from this applicant in the future does not justify the continuation of the notification requirements.

4.        The restraining order does not lapse as at present until 27^th June this year, because it was imposed for a period of 5 years from the date of release and the applicant was released from prison on 27^th June, 2014.  That requires us to look at Article 3 of the 2010 Law because there is in there a provision which is of interest in this connection.

5.        Paragraph 6 of Article 3 provides that :-

"A person in respect of whom a court makes an order under Article 10 (a restraining order) who was not a person subject to the notification requirements of the Law immediately before the making the order becomes subject to notification requirements of this Law upon the order being made." 

We do not need to go into the detail of when that provision becomes effective but it certainly might become effective if a person who is not subject to external notification requirements comes to the Island and it is thought by the Attorney General that an application should be made for a restraining order and under Article 10(2)(b) it is possible that such a person would then be subject to a restraining order.  Advocate Pedley in our view correctly makes the submission that if a person is thought to be a person who provides a serious sexual risk of harm to the public is to be subject to a restraining order then it would also follow that such a person ought to be subject to a notification requirements because the threshold for notification requirements is lower than the threshold for a restraining order and we agree with that; but it does suggest that if we are today looking at the disapplication of the notification requirements it would be inconsistent to do so without doing something about the restraining order.  We accept that that inconsistency would arise and in those circumstances we are going to make two orders today.

6.        The first is that the applicant should no longer be subject to the restraining order as from today, because we are no longer satisfied that the grounds upon which a restraining would be justified, namely that the threat of serious sexual harm apply.  The second order we make today is that the notification requirements under Article 5 are dis-applied to this particular applicant, again with effect from today.

Authorities

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.