BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v De Freitas 20-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 186 (20 September 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2019/2019_186.html Cite as: [2019] JRC 186 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
A. J. Olsen, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Nicolle. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Miguel Angelo Pereira De Freitas
Sentencing by the Inferior Number on 26th July, 2019, following guilty pleas to the following charge:
|
1 count of: |
Sending, by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, contrary to Article 51(a) of the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002. (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Sexual grooming of a female child, contrary to Article 15(5) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018. (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Being drunk and disorderly. (Count 3). |
Age: 25.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1
On 30th October, 2018, Cheyenne O'Connor (Ms O'Connor) was posing as a 13 year old girl named Leila Daly on Facebook. She received a friend request from Miguel FREITAS (the Defendant). She replied and the Defendant told her she "was beautiful and to keep the conversation between the two of us". Ms O'Connor told the Defendant that she was 13. Within hours the Defendant was asking her for photographs of herself, specifically in a bikini. The Defendant made the conversation sexual and sent her a photograph of himself and one of his erect penis. The Defendant told her "You're going to have sex with me, it's not beautiful and it's going to be your first" and "yes it hurts and only at the beginning".
Ms O'Connor then wrote to the Defendant about meeting and he suggested meeting at West Centre on 1st November, 2018. The Defendant then blocked the Leila Daly profile. Ms O'Connor provided Police with screen shots of the chat log between herself and the Defendant.
On 17th March, 2019, (after the incidents that give rise to Counts 2 and 3) Ms O'Connor received another friend request from the Defendant to her 'Leila Daly' Facebook account. She accepted the request and saw that it was the same man who had been in contact with her in October 2018. This Facebook profile stated that it was created on 13th February, 2019. On the same day, the Defendant sent 'Leila Daly' a Facebook 'wave'. She did not respond, but again provided screenshots of this communication to the Police.
Count 2
The complainant on Count 2 is 12 years old. She lives with her parents and her elder sister. On 16th February, 2019, the complainant sent the Defendant a friend request on Facebook. The Defendant responded by messaging her back and they began communicating via Facebook Messenger. The complainant told the Defendant she was only 12 years old. The Defendant replied that she was beautiful, that he wanted to have sex with her and he sent her a picture of his penis. The complainant told the Defendant that he could be arrested if anyone knew about their conversation and the Defendant replied "I know but you delete all our conversations, right?". On 27th February, 2019, after the messages from the Defendant became more sexually graphic, the complainant told her sister about the conversations.
The complainant's sister contacted Ms O'Connor to ask her for advice. The sister and Ms O'Connor went to the Police Station to report their concerns.
Count 3
During the evening on 27th February, 2019, Police Officers attended to a report of a disturbance in the area of Lewis Street, St Helier. On arrival the officers noted that the Defendant was acting in a loud and animated manner. He made threats towards his former partner who at the time was pregnant with his child. These threats were made in Portuguese. The Defendant was warned about his behaviour.
Officers attempted to calm the Defendant down and offer assistance, but he became very angry and started shouting. He was asked to keep his voice down as they were in a built up, residential area. He refused to leave the area and continued to shout and make demands. He was given numerous warnings and was seen to punch a wall in an aggressive way. The Defendant was arrested the Defendant for being drunk and disorderly.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, letter of remorse.
Previous Convictions:
One previous caution for theft (2017) on the records before the Court.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
18 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 3: |
2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years' imprisonment.
Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law that a period of 7 years elapse before the accused is permitted to apply no longer to be subject to the notification requirements to run from date of conviction.
Restraining Order sought to commence from date of sentence for a period of 7 years under Article 10(4) with the following conditions:-
a) That the Defendant is prohibited from using any device capable of storing electronic data unless he makes such device available on request for inspection by a police officer and at the same time he provides the police officer with full access by whichever means access is achieved to enable such data to be analysed;
b) That the Defendant shall notify the Offender Management Unit of all devices he owns, or to which he has access, which are able to store electronic data;
c) That the Defendant is prohibited from having any unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any female child under the age of 18 years, other than:
i. Such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life; or
ii. With the consent of the child's parent or guardian who has full and accurate knowledge of his conviction and who is not subject to restrictions under the terms of any order pursuant to the said Law.
d) That in circumstances where the Defendant finds himself in breach of paragraph c above, he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as is reasonably practicable;
e) The Defendant must allow access to any accommodation which he owns, lives in or from time to time stays in to police officers who are checking upon this Order;
f) The Defendant must allow access to any vehicle owned or used by him to police officers who are checking upon this Order; and
g) The Defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the victims of Count 1 and 2.
Recommendation for deportation sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
6 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
2 years' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 3: |
2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years' 6 months' imprisonment.
Order under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law that a period of 6 years should elapse before the Defendant is permitted to apply no longer to be subject to the notification requirements to run from date of conviction. -
Restraining Order to commence from date of sentence for a period of 6 years under Article 10(4) with the following conditions:-
a) That the Defendant is prohibited from using any device capable of storing electronic data unless he makes such device available on request for inspection by a police officer and at the same time he provides the police officer with full access by whichever means access is achieved to enable such data to be analysed;
b) That the Defendant shall notify the Offender Management Unit of all devices he owns, or to which he has access, which are able to store electronic data;
c) That the Defendant is prohibited from having any unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any female child under the age of 18 years, other than:
i. Such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life; or
ii. With the consent of the child's parent or guardian who has full and accurate knowledge of his conviction and who is not subject to restrictions under the terms of any order pursuant to the said Law.
iii. Such contact with his daughter (or such other child born to him) that is unsupervised and not opposed by the children service (or permitted by order of Court in legal proceedings).
d) That in circumstances where the Defendant finds himself in breach of paragraph (c) above, he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as is reasonably practicable;
e) The Defendant must allow access to any accommodation which he owns, lives in or from time to time stays in to police officers who are checking upon this Order;
f) The Defendant must allow access to any vehicle owned or used by him to police officers who are checking upon this Order; and
g) The Defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the victims of Count 1 and 2.
Recommendation for deportation made.
C. M. M. Yates, Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE lieutenant BAILIFF:
1. We announce the sentences this evening for reasons that will be given in a judgment to follow at a later date. Those reasons will be delivered as soon as possible.
2. Mr De Freitas would you stand up, please.
3. On Count 1, there will be a sentence of six months' imprisonment.
4. On Count 2, there will be a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, consecutive.
5. On Count 3, there will be a sentence of 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. Thus, making a total of 2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, in all.
6. As far as notification under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 is concerned there will be a period of 6 years before which you may seek to have the notification requirements disapplied.
7. As far as the restrictive orders are concerned we make the orders moved for by the Crown at paragraph 18 of the conclusions, but we are going to add to that paragraph 18(c)(iii) as moved by defence counsel.
8. The restrictive orders will be for 6 years from today.
9. Finally, deportation. The twin tests of Camacho v Attorney General [2007 JLR 462] are both met and therefore we shall recommend your deportation at the conclusion of the sentence.
10. Members of the press, you will know about reporting restrictions. We should not really have referred to the victim even by initials, and would you please avoid doing that? I know you understand.
11. We wish to thank counsel for their help in this matter.
