2002/66

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th March, 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jeffrey Guy Bolton Hanby

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2002, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

3 counts of:	Indecent assault (counts 1,3,5)
3 counts of:	Procuring an act of gross indecency (counts 2,4,6)

 

 

Age:     66.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

1983-86, one male child victim aged 12 - 15 years.   Abused trust, in ‘loco parentis’, took child on outings which culminated in activities charged.   Escalation of activities from touching groin over clothing to mutual masturbation to ejaculation and oral sex.  Some element of corruption (reward on one occasion) and grooming.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation, age, remorse (not high as sought to blame child as initiator for some matters), Very poor health, 20 years arthritis, prostate cancer (inoperable), heart condition, gall stones, awaiting hip operation.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months’ imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years’ imprisonment.
Count 3:	2 years’ imprisonment.
Count 4:	3 years’ imprisonment.
Count 5:	3 ½ years’ imprisonment.
Count 6:	4 years’ imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Did not set starting point as Crown had not.  Not sure starting point appropriate in sexual offences.  If not for medical condition 3 ½ years aggregate would be correct sentence.   As act of mercy because of medical condition 18 months sentence.   Could not meet seriousness of offence with non-custodial sentence although had considered.  Authority referred to in Whelan of 18 months to 3 years (4 years re felatio) should be viewed with caution as courts now appreciate affects on victims more.

 

Count 1:	12 months’ imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months’ imprisonment.
Count 3:	18 months’ imprisonment.
Count 4:	18 months’ imprisonment.
Count 5:	18 months’ imprisonment.
Count 6:	18 months’ imprisonment, all concurrent

 

 

T. J. Le Cocq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        When this defendant was about 40 he indecently assaulted and procured acts of gross indecency with the victim who was a boy aged about 12 or 13 when it started and about 15 when it finished in 1986.   The offences started by the defendant touching the boy through his trousers, moved to mutual masturbation to the point of ejaculation, and concluded with an act whereby the defendant committed oral sex on the boy and procured the boy to commit oral sex on him.   There were, however, only four incidents over that period although they have given rise to six counts.  In addition there was an element of corruption in that the defendant bribed the boy on one occasion with the offer of some binoculars.  It was furthermore a gross breach of trust .   The defendant was a friend of the boy’s family and they trusted him to take the boy on trips to follow his interest in German bunkers, but the defendant betrayed that trust by sexually abusing the victim on four of those occasions.

2.        As is so often the case these offences have had a profound effect upon the victim.   We have before us a Victim Impact  Statement from Mr. Hollywood, the consultant psychologist.  We will simply quote from the last paragraph of that statement which reads as follows:

“There is little doubt that the sexual experiences of his early adolescent life have had an enduring, powerful and deleterious effect upon X’s life.   The reticent, rather timid, uncertain 31 year old personality of today has, at least in part, been forged by his unfortunate early life experiences.”

3.        The Crown has moved for an aggregate sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  The Crown has not suggested a starting point.   The Court of Appeal has indicated recently that it is preferable to fix upon a starting point, although it has not yet had to consider a case involving sexual offences.   If we were to fix a starting point it means that we must consider what sentence would be appropriate for these offences if the offender were a person who had pleaded not guilty and there were no personal mitigating factors.  In other words we would have to consider the hypothetical case of these particular offences being committed by a paedophile who had committed many previous sexual offences and whom we considered to be a danger to young children.  

4.        We have to say that it is difficult enough to decide on the right sentence for the offender before the Court without also having to consider what sentence the Court would have passed on a completely different and hypothetical offender who is not before the Court.   The Court has never previous applied starting points and it is not done in the United Kingdom so far as we are aware.   Nevertheless, in deference to the Court of Appeal we ought to try to reach one if possible.  But in this case the Crown not having suggested a starting point we do not, therefore, feel able to do so.   What we clearly must consider is the appropriate level of sentencing having regard to what this defendant has done and the mitigation available to him.

5.        We were referred by Mr. Gollop to the work by C.E. Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, where he refers to a de facto band of some 18 months’ to 3 years for indecent assault, and 18 months’ to 4 years’, perhaps, where oral sex is involved.  We should point out that the cases to which Advocate Whelan refers for that proposition stretch back many years.   All the members of this Court are in no doubt that the community has become much more aware in recent years of the havoc which can be wrought on lives as a result of child abuse.   We think that the sentences passed by courts generally in relation to sexual abuse have increased gradually over the period in order to reflect this and we think that great caution must be applied in referring back to suggested bands of sentencing which refer in turn to older cases.

6.        We consider next the mitigation in this case which has been put forward powerfully by Mr. Gollop.   He refers first to the plea of guilty; in cases of this nature, this is always something of considerable value as it spares the child from giving evidence.  In this case the admissions were made at the earliest opportunity at interview and the plea was entered at the earliest opportunity.   That co-operation and guilty plea therefore go very considerably to the defendant’s credit.

7.        He refers next to the fact that this defendant is a man of good character. He has no previous convictions whatsoever.  Equally significantly, he has not committed any further offences since these offences ceased some 16 years ago or so.   He is now 66, shortly to be 67, and he has expressed remorse.   We have to say that that expression of remorse is not particularly strong in this case, certainly when compared with many other cases.   The defendant in all his interviews has sought to put blame on the youngster for initiating some of these offences, a suggestion which we find hard to accept.

8.        Bearing in mind the powerful mitigation, including the length of time since these offences were committed, and the other matters which we have mentioned and the references which we have seen, we would in the absence of his medical condition have thought that the right sentence was one of 3 ½ years.   However, there is the additional factor in this case of his medical condition.   He has serious arthritis which affects his mobility to a marked degree.   He suffers from prostate cancer which is inoperable and he also has a heart condition.   It is quite clear from all the reports that time in prison for him would be extremely difficult and would cause much greater hardship to him than to a person in normal physical condition.   Mr. Gollop has argued that this medical condition should lead to us imposing a non-custodial sentence.   We have considered that submission very carefully but in the light of the seriousness of the offending we do not feel able to accede to it.   However, we do accept that the medical condition should lead us, as an act of mercy in this case, to reduce quite substantially the sentence which we would have otherwise have passed.   The Court, therefore, passes an aggregate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment which is made up as follows: count 1, 12 months’, and 18 months’ concurrent on all the other counts.   We accept that it is normal to impose a greater sentence for oral sex but we think that in the light of the particular circumstances of this case we will simply reduce all the sentences bar count 1 to 18 months’.

Authorities

A.G. –v- Barrett (9^th October, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. –v- Jouan (1996) JLR N.17; (15^th March, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. –v- Noel (29^th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. –v- Renouf (11^th October, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/197]

A.G. –v- Gosselin (31^st March, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/55].

A.G. –v- Swinburne (1^st September, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/172],

A.G. –v- Jervis Dykes (26^th April, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. –v- Picot (9^th June, 2000); [2000/101].

A.G. –v- Downs (1^st February, 2002); [2002/30].