Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC114

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

(Exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961).

14^th June 2007

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Tibbo, King, Morgan and Newcombe.

L

-v-

The Attorney General

Appeal to the Superior Number of the Royal Court, against sentences passed by the Inferior Number on 9^th February, 2007, following conviction on:

3 counts of:	Indecent Assault.  (Counts 1, 3 and 6).
2 counts of:	Procuring an act of gross indecency.  (Counts 2 and 9).

Advocate S. E. Fitz for the Appellant.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an application by L for leave to appeal against the sentence of 30 months' imprisonment imposed by the Inferior Number for offences of indecency committed many years ago against his daughter and his granddaughter.  The Inferior number summarised the offending in the following way and we cannot improve upon it.

"This was the most appalling breach of trust.  You repeatedly abused your daughter over a period of about 5 years, between the age of 7 and 11, by touching her vagina.  On one occasion you went further and tried to get her to have oral sex with you and then you had some form of simulated sexual intercourse with her.

If that were not bad enough, you repeated your conduct some 20 years later with your daughter's adopted daughter, in other words your granddaughter.  This too continued over several years and involved similar conduct.  On one occasion you persuaded her to commit oral sex on you.

We agree with the way the Crown Advocate summarised this.  What you did robbed these two women of their childhood.  The family home, a place which should afford a safe and loving haven for a child, became for both of them a place of dread.  The victim impact statements make for harrowing reading.

As against that, Advocate Haines has put forward much mitigation on your behalf.  You have pleaded guilty which has saved them from the trauma of giving evidence and you are entitled to full credit for that.  You are a man hitherto of excellent character and we have read the references you have received.  The offences were a long time ago.  It is clear that you are no future threat to anyone now, and we have read the medical reports which refer to your medical condition.  We also agree that the effect on your wife of your going to prison will be substantial but that is sadly often the case where people commit serious offences.

What has caused us most difficulty in this case is your age.  You are 82 and it is clear from the cases that this is a strong mitigating factor."

2.        The Inferior Number went on to conclude that the appropriate sentence if the defendant had been in middle age would have been 5 years' imprisonment.  Taking account of his advanced age that was discounted by 50% and a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was imposed. 

3.        Miss Fitz, who presented her arguments with commendable force, submitted that a reduction of 50% was insufficient to mark the advanced age of the appellant.  She referred us to a number of authorities, especially the case of R -v- Harold Nicholas S [1998] Cr App R (S) 261, where the English Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment upon an 82 year old man who had committed much more serious offences upon his granddaughter.  Counsel suggested that the appropriate sentence in this case was one of 12 months' imprisonment which would sufficiently mark the gravity of the offences having regard to the age of the offender. 

4.        Despite the eloquent submissions of counsel the Court has had no hesitation in concluding that the approach adopted by the Inferior Number was anything other than moderate and appropriate and very far from being manifestly excessive.  These were appalling crimes which had appalling consequences for the victims which endure today many decades after the crimes were committed.  The application for leave to appeal must accordingly be refused.  I am grateful to both counsel for their submissions.

Authorities

R -v- Harold Nicholas S [1998] Cr. App. R. (S) 261.