Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC155

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th October 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

B.R.

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

6 counts of:

Indecent assault (Counts 1 - 6).

Age:  72

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The victim was between the ages of 6 and 7 over the material time.  She was the granddaughter of the Defendant and especially vulnerable because she was born with cerebral palsy, leaving her with mild learning difficulties and minor physical tremors.  Her speech was slightly affected although she had no difficulty in understanding others.  She attended mainstream school.  The Defendant and his wife routinely collected the victim from school and looked after her until her parents, who were both working, collected her.  Defendant's offending came to light following a telephone call, overheard by victim's mother, between the Defendant and victim who was speaking to her grandfather aggressively.  Following questions from her mother, it became apparent that the victim had been frequently sexually abused by her grandfather whilst in his care.  Victim was later video interviewed and it was established that after school, in the lounge on the sofa, the Defendant would touch her naked genital area, placing his finger at the entrance to her vagina and he "just stroked it".  When the Defendant was arrested and interviewed, he initially denied all wrongdoing but then admitted that the sexual touching had happened on at least six occasions over a 14 month period.  He denied full digital penetration saying he could only go so far because the victim was not fully developed.  He explained that his granddaughter attracted him but blamed her parents for putting too much reliance upon him to care for the victim after school and during school holidays which meant he could not pursue his own leisure activities of fishing and model railways.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; previous good character; age.  Wife had left him since being charged and family ostracised him.  Letter from doctor indicated currently undergoing investigation for a lymph node lump in his neck.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 3:	3½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 4:	3½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 5:	3½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).
Count 6:	3½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        R, this was an appalling breach of trust.  Your son and your daughter-in-law trusted you to look after their only child, your granddaughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy and you betrayed that trust by indecently assaulting her on many occasions over a period in excess of one year.

2.        We, of course, agree with your Advocate that we must take note of the exact nature of the assaults and we do so, but as against that, although it is not known yet whether there will be any long term consequences for your granddaughter, it is well known that victims of child abuse often suffer adverse consequences in the long term.  As a result all indecent assaults of children are serious.

3.        The fact that you have sought to put some of the blame on your son and daughter-in-law for asking you and your wife to look after the child so much is not an attractive feature of this case. 

4.        We have listened carefully to all that your advocate has very eloquently said on your behalf.  We take into account the fact that you pleaded guilty and therefore you spared your granddaughter from the need to come into court.  We also take into account your age, 72, and your current state of health, the fact that you have no previous convictions and that this appears to be completely out of character, and the fact that you have lost your family, although you have no one to blame but yourself for that.  We take into account that there is a low risk of re-offending and we have read the reports and the letter you have written.

5.        We are in no doubt that there is no alternative to prison in this case.  This case is too serious to justify being dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence and we agree that the conclusions of the Crown take into account all the available mitigation, so the sentence of the Court is 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent on each count.

No Authorities