Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC061

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th April 2008

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Le Brocq.

The Attorney General

-v-

Roger Arthur Holland

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

First Indictment

3 counts of:

Indecent assault.  (Count 1, 2 and 3).

Additional Charges to be taken into consideration

5 counts of:

Indecent assault.  (Count 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant committed a number of indecent assaults between 1988 and 2000, on three girls then aged between 11 and 19 years' old.

On 11^th July, 2007, a victim, S, disclosed a number of indecent assaults committed by the defendant between 1998 and 2000 to the police.  S was the daughter of one of the defendant's colleagues.  She said that when she was aged between 11 and 13 the defendant had touched one of her breasts over clothing on around 10 occasions.  This touching was always over clothing.  She said that the abuse had had a very negative affect on S, leading to panic attacks, flashback and depression in later life.

The second victim, L, met the defendant when she was 14 years' old, through her boyfriend who is now her husband.  The defendant and L's husband were both members of St John's Ambulance and the defendant would visit them regularly. She said that on these visits, over a period of 4 years, the defendant would frequently touch her on her buttocks, shoulders, arms or waist in a manner which made her feel uncomfortable.  It was always over her clothing.  The defendant's behaviour had had a negative effect on the way L feels in the company of men.

The third victim, A, recalled three specific incidents that took place when she was aged between 11 and 13 years' old.  The defendant was acting as a marshal at sand-racing events when A was in attendance.  On one occasion the defendant touched A's breast and another time lifted her up by placing his hand under her crotch, touching the area of her vagina.  All the touching was over clothing.  On the final occasion he touched her breast again.  When she realised the defendant was acting intentionally it caused her distress and she told her mother about it, although no complaint was made at the time.

The defendant asked for five further indecent assaults against five other girls, aged between 8 and 13 years' old to be taken into consideration.  Like the counts on indictment, these assaults all involved a breach of trust.  All occurred prior to 2000.  The offences had been carried out by the defendant at the houses of his friends, or at St John's Ambulance events.  The touching was similar to that outlined in the main offences, and always took place over clothing.  None of the five girls had any recollection of the incidents.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty please, wrote his own indictment, remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions for three offences of indecent assault.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Additional Charges to be taken into consideration

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment.

The defendant had already been sentenced to two years' imprisonment in 2001 following a breach of the probation order made in 2000.  This would be taken into account, as all the offences being dealt with occurred prior to 2000.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

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

Additional charges to be taken into consideration.

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

The Court accepted that these offences were at the lower end of the scale, being opportunistic touching over clothing, lasting a matter of moments and mostly in the presence of others.  There were, however, several aggravating factors including the prolonged period of offending, the number of victims, their youth and the breach of trust involved.

Despite the mitigation, due to the aggravating factors and the defendant's high risk of re-offending, the Court felt it appropriate to increase the conclusions of the Crown.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. P. Gleeson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In March 2001 you were sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for indecently assaulting two young girls.  All of the current offences pre-date that conviction.  Many of them were known about but others were not.  Had they all been known about, we would have no doubt, that you would have been sentenced for the present offences at that time. 

2.        Indecent assault covers an enormous variation in offending from momentary touching over the clothing to something just short of rape.  We accept that what you actually did in these cases is very much towards the lower end of the scale.  It involved opportunistic touching over the victims' clothing lasting a matter of moments and usually, although not always, it was done in the presence of or near other people.  Indeed some or all of the victims in the offences which have been taken into consideration appear not to have been aware that it was an indecent touching and that your motives in touching were indecent.  The nature of the touching was often in the area of the breasts but sometimes it was in the area of the groin. 

3.        However, there are a number of aggravating factors.  The first is that your offending was prolonged, covering the period from 1981 to 2000, that is some 19 years.  Secondly, there were eight victims in addition to the two for which you were dealt with in 2001.  Thirdly, your victims were young.  They varied between the ages of 8 and 13, although one victim was older.  It is clear from the reports that you are attracted to girls of that age and the reports vary in their assessment, but they assess you as either being at medium or high risk of re-offending.  Fourthly, all of the offences were a breach of trust.  You were either a friend of the relevant family and trusted by them, or you were in an official position which again brought with it a position of trust. 

4.        Advocate Gleeson has spoken strongly in mitigation on your behalf.  He has put forward all those matters which could be put forward.  He has pointed out in particular that you have pleaded guilty to these offences, but more than that you have in fact attempted to wipe the slate clean by asking for all your offences to be taken into consideration and in many cases you were writing your own indictment in the sense that there had been no complaint from victims in relation to those offences.

5.        He also points out that since you were released from prison in May 2002, you have not committed any further offences.  Indeed he goes further and points out that you sought voluntary assistance initially then, with regular employment, you felt that was unnecessary, but when in early 2007, following unemployment, you began to get the urges which you had felt before, you sought help again in order to try and prevent yourself from re-offending.  That certainly stands you in good stead because it does suggest that you realise the problems which you face, and the risks which you pose, and on this occasion attempted to do something about it.

6.        We have read carefully the letters and references from your family, from you and from others and we have carefully considered all the reports.  We note also that you intend to go back to the United Kingdom following sentence in order to spare both your family and the victims.

7.        Despite all this, there is quite clearly no alternative to a prison sentence today and the question for us is what length it should be.  We do agree that it is unfortunate that these offences were not all dealt with in 2001 and we agree with the Crown that the way we have to look at this, because all the offences were committed before 2001, is to try and work out what sentence would have been imposed if they had all been dealt with at the same time. As you have already served 2 years it would be quite wrong to impose a sentence today which would result, in aggregate, in something longer than you would have received at the time.

8.        However, where we differ from the Crown is that we think they have under-estimated the appropriate sentence.  Given the aggravating factors we have described and even allowing for the mitigating factors we think the correct sentence which you would have received, if they had all been dealt with at the same time, would have been one of 4 years.  Given that you have already had a sentence imposed of 2 years, we think therefore the right sentence is one of 2 years.

9.        The sentence concurrently on all the counts is one of 2 years' imprisonment.

No Authorities