Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Indecent images of children

[2021]JRC040

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 February 2021

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Crill, Christensen and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Thomas Joseph Benjamin Rondel

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th December, 2020, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 counts of:	Making indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law, 1994 (Counts 1, 2 and 3).
1 count of:	Distribution of indecent photographs, contrary to Article 2(1)(c) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law, 1994.(Count 4).

Age:  19. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

At half-past seven in the morning on Wednesday 24^th June, 2020, Police Officers went to the defendant's house to execute a search warrant.  They seized various items including a laptop computer, an iPad and an iPhone all belonging to the defendant.

 

The defendant was interviewed later that same day and he provided passwords for his electronic devices, cloud storage accounts and details for his email accounts.

 

He admitted to accessing indecent images of children since he was 14/15 years old.  He admitted to downloading thousands of images to his phone, laptop and cloud storage.

 

The Police specialist Hi Tech Crime Unit analysed three of the seized devices and the cloud storage account belonging to the defendant.  The laptop was subject to an exhaustive analysis and 17,315 indecent images of children were located, categorised as follows:

 

Category	Still Images	Moving Images	Totals
A	2,036	1,235	3,271
B	2,181	753	2,934
C	10,700	410	11,110
Totals	14,917	2,398	17,315

 

Given the extremely high number of images the remaining devices were dip tested only as is the current best practice.  Further indecent images of children were located on the defendant's iPad, iPhone, and two online storage accounts

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, good character, youth, remorse and co-operation with the investigation.

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 5 years' youth detention.  3 years; youth detention.
Count 2:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' youth detention.

Forfeiture and destruction of the electronic devices containing indecent material sought.

Order sought under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 10 years should elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements to commence from date of sentence.

Restrictive Orders sought, to run from the date of sentence for a period of 10 years, under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 with the following conditions:-

1.      That the Defendant be prohibited from:

(a) Living in the same household as any child under the age of 16 unless with the express approval of the Offender Management Unit of the States of Jersey Police;

(b) Contacting or attempting to contact, via any form of social media, internet or telecommunications system, any child he knows or believes to be under 16, unless there is a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21, who is aware of the accused's convictions, and who does not have a conviction which would render him/her liable to notification under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010;

 

(c) Being alone with any child under the age of 16 years, aside from such contact which is inadvertent or unavoidable.  They will be considered to be alone if there is not a parent, guardian or responsible adult present who is over the age of 21, who is aware of the accused's convictions, and who does not have a conviction which would render him/her liable to notification under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

2.      That in circumstances where the Defendant finds himself alone with a child under the age of 16, or finds himself in contact with someone he knows or believes to be a child under the age of 16, that he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as reasonably possible;

3.      That the Defendant be prohibited from:

(a) Owning or having in his possession or having access to any device capable of accessing the internet unless:

(i) It has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use.

(ii) The Defendant ensures that such history is not deleted; and

(iii) That he register the device with the Offender Management Unit of the States of Jersey Police.

4.      That the Defendant cannot refuse access to police officers who are monitoring or checking on his restraining orders, and he must allow officers entry to any premises he occupies or is in control of for the purposes of searching for relevant devices

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	Staring point 5 years' youth detention.  2 years' youth detention.
Count 2:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total:  2 years' youth detention. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the electronic devices containing indecent material ordered. 

Order made under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 that a period of 7 years should elapse before the accused is permitted to apply to no longer be subject to the notification requirements to commence from date of sentence. 

Restrictive Orders made, to run from the date of sentence for a period of 7 years, under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 with the conditions set out above.

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant is to be sentenced for making 17,315 still and moving indecent images of children, including 3,271 in the most serious Category A, which is equivalent to the previous Levels 4 and 5 on the Copine Scale.  The offences were committed over a period of 4 years from when he was 15.  He is now 19 years of age and thus the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014 ("the Young Offenders Law") apply.

2.        Before dealing with his sentence we must first deal with the notification requirements under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.  The prosecution asks the Court to specify a period of 10 years before the defendant can apply to have the notification requirements lifted.  That period is not agreed by Advocate Bell for the defendant who suggests that 7 years would be more appropriate.  On the facts of this case, and in the light of the assessments we have read and in particular in the light of the defendant's age we agree that 7 years is the appropriate period and we so order. 

3.        The guideline case for sentencing these offences is AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1 and applying those guidelines this is a Category 4 case and an initial figure of 3 years' imprisonment applies.  That assumes:

(i)        That the defendant is an adult;

(ii)       That he has no relevant previous convictions;

(iii)      That the number of images is small;

(iv)      That the making of the images was for his benefit alone; and

(v)       The sentencing process results from a contested trial.

4.        In this case the defendant is an adult, albeit a young adult and he has no previous convictions.  However, the initial figure is to be increased to take account of the following aggravating features:

(i)        The volume of images is high with 3,271 being in Category A and which include moving images.

(ii)       The defendant was involved in distribution on the basis of send and receive although he effectively wrote his own indictment in this respect.

(iii)      The period over which the offences took place was some 4 years; and

(iv)      The fact that the defendant had organised and sorted these images into various folders on his device. 

5.        The defendant is assessed at a significant risk of reconviction for similar offending and at a moderate risk of non-sexual reoffending. 

6.        The defendant was a young person, as defined in the Young Offenders Law for 3 of the 4 years of his offending and a young adult as defined for 1 year.  If he had been an adult for all of his offending the prosecution would have moved for the raising of the initial figure of 3 years to 7 years before allowing for mitigation, but because of his age they propose the initial figure should be increased to 5 years. 

7.        Allowing for his guilty plea, his cooperation with the police and his good character the prosecution move for sentence of 3 years' youth detention.  The prosecution takes the view that this offending is too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence.  It has moved for a concurrent sentence for the distribution offence (Count 4), as it has treated this as an aggravating feature for the other three counts of making indecent images. 

8.        In terms of mitigation we have listened to the very full address made by Advocate Bell.  He accepts that this is a Category 4 case and that 3 years is the correct initial figure, but suggests that the aggravating features should lead to it being increased to 4 years and not 5 years.  We have already mentioned the defendant's guilty plea, his cooperation and good character and we can say that his cooperation was indeed very full in this case.  It is clear that the defendant is deeply ashamed of his offending and very remorseful.  He also has the support of his family, members of whom are here in Court today.  We also note from the background reports and assessment that his childhood has been marked by isolation and what appears to be a lack of emotional support.  He does have mental health issues. 

9.        Advocate Bell suggests, allowing properly for all of this mitigation, the sentence should be reduced to 2 years and therefore the Court should consider the possibility of a Community outcome, namely probation and a Community Service Order.

10.      As the Court has said on many occasions these are not victimless crimes.  The children in these images and movies, some as young as 3, have suffered the most appalling sexual abuse.  Furthermore, they depict children who may well have been threatened or coerced into the sexual acts that were shown.  Indeed, in his very candid discussion with the Probation Officer, the defendant recounted occasions when the children he was watching were visibly or audibly distressed, and although this upset and ashamed him, his sexual interest would override his feelings of guilt and shame and after a period of time he would come back to view the images and movies again.

11.      We have found this a very difficult case in particular because of the defendant's age, but in the end, we have concluded that the offending here is too serious to justify a non-custodial outcome.  However, taking the starting point of 5 years, which we accept is correct, and allowing a full one third reduction for his guilty plea that would reduce his sentence to 3 years and 4 months which means that the prosecution have allowed only 4 months for all of the other considerable mitigation available to the defendant.  In our view, a sentence of 2 years more properly reflects the mitigation in this case.

12.      In terms of the restraining orders the defendant accepts that they are appropriate, and we will impose them, again for a period of 7 years, taking into account his age from today. 

13.      We strongly recommend that the defendant takes advantage of the help that he will receive in prison and, Mr Rondel, in particular that you will undertake the program that is being developed by Dr Briggs, we are sure that you will do so.

14.      On Count 1 you are sentenced to 2 years' youth detention; on Count 2 to 12 months' youth detention concurrent; on Count 3, 6 months' youth detention concurrent, and on Count 4, 12 months' youth detention concurrent.  That makes a total of 2 years' youth detention.

15.      We also have warn you that on release you may be subject to a period of supervision.

16.      We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the devices.

17.      We make no order as to costs. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014. 

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010. 

AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] (2) JLR 1. 

AG-v-Nursaw [2019] (2) JLR Note 5

AG v Nursaw [2019] JRC 204

AG-v-R [2019] JRC 059

AG-v-Storer [2018] JRC 167

AG-v-Bourke [2018] JRC 134