AG- v -DS

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Deputy Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] JRC 213
• Date: 13 November 2009

[2009] JRC 213

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

W. Bailhache, Q. C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Clapham.

The Attorney General

and

DS

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

AG -v- G [2009] JRC 148.

AG -v- Corcoran [2009] JRC 167.

AG -v- C [2009] JRC 177.

Camacho -v- AG [2007] JCA 145.

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

1 count of: Sexual grooming, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007. (Count 1).

1 count of: Indecent assault. (Count 2).

1 count of: Committing an act of gross indecency. (Count 3).

Age: 45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The abuse took place over a 14 month period. From October 2007, DS was grooming the victim, then aged thirteen (Count 1), and also began to indecently assault her by touching her buttocks and breasts over clothing. This escalated to his touching her breast and vagina under her clothing in March 2008, when she was fourteen (Count 2), but without digitally penetrating her. The gross indecency (Count 3) took place soon afterwards, when DS asked her to perform oral sex upon his erect penis. In interview the victim said that this happened on 15 to 20 occasions between March and November.

Emails sent by DS to the victim on her school email account corroborated her evidence. The Crown submits that these email messages show the defendant to be a man concerned only with satisfying his own desires, ignoring the clear requests of the victim to stop the abuse, and exercising a degree of control using religion, money, expressions of love, and the threat of discovery to control a girl who was fourteen and vulnerable. There is a thirty year age difference between him and the victim.

In interview DS claimed that the victim had been the instigator of the sexual activity, and that while what he had done was wrong, he had never forced her to do anything. He was described in reports as “manipulative deviant sexual offender”.

Enquiries by the Police and Immigration department revealed that DS had previously been living and working in Jersey illegally, and had also spent many years in the United States and England without the necessary visas, although at the time of these offences he was legitimately in the Island.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, previous good character, taking courses at HMP while on remand and expressions of remorse.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1: 2 years'...