Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC028

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th February 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Albert Freeman

 

 

2 counts of:	Indecent assault (Count 1, 3).
1 count of:	Procuring an act of gross indecency (Count 2).

 

Age:     49.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Freeman formed a relationship and co-habited with the mother of the victim.  Freeman and the mother decided to parent further children and following a successful reversal operation for a  vasectomy, Freeman claimed that his "sex drive went through the roof".  Shortly thereafter Freeman commenced his abuse of the victim who was aged 13 at the time.  He was caught abusing the victim on the first occasion when the mother returned home, unexpectedly.  Whilst he was ejected from the family home after one night the mother permitted him to return on the promise that he would not behave in the manner again.  The incident was not reported to the police at the time.  However, this was the first incident of what was to become a regular pattern of indecent assaults.  Over a twenty-two month period Freeman admitted that he abused the victim on up to fifty separate occasions by playing with her private areas including her bottom, between her legs and her breasts (Count 1).  Freeman also admitted that he had asked the victim to make him ejaculate and had showed her how to masturbate him.  This had happened on at least six separate occasions (Count 2).  Count 3 occurred as a separate incident and offence when the mother was absent from the family home and Freeman admitted touching the victim's breasts initially over her clothing and then beneath her clothing.  He then touched the victim's vagina and was engaged in oral sex on the victim when the mother returned to the family home and caught Freeman "in flagrante delicto". 

The matter was reported to the Police and when the victim was interviewed, she only gave details of the most recent offence and the first offence.  However, Freeman attended voluntarily at the Police Station and gave a full account of his abuse.  In the Crown's view, these were serious offences involving a clear breach of trust on the part of Freeman particularly as at the time the victim's mental maturity did not match her physical maturity.  The indecent assaults occurred over a twenty-two month period with Freeman using the victim for his own gratification and in particular committing "quick fix" acts of abuse in the mornings when he would fondle the victim's breasts or vagina in the kitchen before the rest of the family were up and about.  It was accepted that Freeman had not used threats against the victim but he had coerced the victim and had chosen to misconstrue the victim's acquiescence with agreement.  The assaults involved the fondling of the victim's breasts, touching the vagina including digital penetration and the introduction of the victim to oral sex.  A Victim Impact Statement was produced from which it appeared that the victim had not suffered any physical affects although concerns were expressed as to the long term psychological effects particularly with regard to her relationship with her mother.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view he had the benefit of his guilty plea which had been entered at an early stage and which was also important in cases of this nature.  He was also fully co-operative with the Police making a full and frank confession.  Whilst he had a previous criminal record, he had the benefit of good character for approximately 30 years.  He was described as being at a high level risk of re-offending.

In mitigation the defence contented that he was entitled to substantial credit for his co-operation as he had disclosed more matters at this interview than the victim had done at her first interview.  It was suggested that the first assault was not as serious as subsequent assaults and that having been caught by the mother, the failure to take a more positive or constructive stance at that time indicated a level of inadequate parental control on her part.  There had been no physical threats nor coercion in the strict legal sense.  Numerous reports were before the Court for the purposes of sentencing which indicated that Freeman had learning difficulties, he was illiterate and had problems with his memory.  He continued to have the support of the victim's mother who was carry his child.  The Victim Impact Statement made it clear that the victim was not fearful of Freeman and it was suggested that she was relatively unaffected by what had taken place.  There was no grudge or negative feelings towards Freeman.  It was pure speculation as to whether there would be problems in the future with the relationship between the victim and the mother.

 

Previous Convictions:

Two minor motoring offences and one offence of indecent exposure.  All three offences were committed prior to 1974.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Offences involving sexual abuse of children are viewed as offences of the most serious nature.  In Freeman's case the aggravating features were the breach of trust with the victim aged 13/14 and a mental age very much lower than her physical age.  She has been described as naïve and a happy child.  Subjected to abuse for twenty-two months with up to fifty assaults including digital penetration and oral sex and the procuring of acts of masturbation.  The offending persisted even after he was caught "in flagrante delicto".  He has however the benefit of his guilty plea, co-operation and has expressed remorse.  Regard was had to the Victim Impact Statement which showed that the victim was not presently significantly affected by these offences.  The Court considered the Crown's Conclusions too low.  These were very serious offences and it was the Court's duty to mark such offences with a sentence of severity.

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        As the Court has already stated in an earlier case this morning, offences involving the sexual abuse of children are regarded by this Court as being amongst the most serious of crimes.  The aggravating features in this case include the abuse of trust placed in the defendant as a member of the victim's family.  It seems clear from the reports that the victim, although aged between 13 and 14, has a mental age which is very much lower.  She is described as a naïve and happy child.

2.        The abuse perpetrated by the defendant went on for some 22 months, and up to 50 indecent assaults took place.  There was digital penetration of the child's vagina, oral sex and the procuring of acts of masturbation.

3.        The offending persisted even after the defendant had been caught by the child's mother in flagrante delicto.  In mitigation we accept that the defendant co-operated with the police and admitted more than had in fact had been alleged by the victim.  He has expressed his remorse for his actions and has pleaded guilty to the indictment.  We also accept that the victim impact report shows that at present the sexual abuse has not significantly affected the victim's self esteem, inter personal relationships or performance in an educational setting.

4.        Balancing the aggravating and mitigating features of this case as best we can we think that the Crown's conclusions are too low.  These were very serious offences and even giving full weight to the mitigating circumstances we have a duty to mark society's revulsion for the corruption and sexual abuse of young children.

5.        Freeman, on count 1 you will be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; on count 2, to 3 years' imprisonment; on count 3, to 3 years imprisonment, all those sentences to run concurrently making a total of 3 years in prison.

No Authorities