[2011]JRC003
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
6th January 2011
|
Before :
|
Sir Christopher Pitchers, Commissioner, and
Jurats Tibbo and Kerley.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Morag Louise Jordan
Anthony Jordan
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
after conviction at Assize trial on 26th November, 2010, on the following charges:
Morag Louise Jordan
|
8 counts of:
|
Assault (Counts 2, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
and 27).
|
Age: 62.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
The offences arise from Mrs Jordan’s
behaviour towards four children who were in her care at Haut de la
Garenne. Aged in her mid twenties
and thirties at the time of the offending, Mrs Jordan assaulted young girls and
boys who were resident at the home.
She would regularly strike three of the children, all girls, about the
head or face with her hand (Counts 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24). Additionally on one occasion she rubbed
one of the girls face in urine soaked sheets after the girl had wet the bed
(Count 2). The girl was aged
between 14 and 15 years. On another
single occasion she punched another girl in the back with her fist (Count
27). This girl was aged between 9
and 11 years. In addition Mrs Jordan
assaulted a young boy who was not part of her group. When Mrs Jordan discovered him in her
group where he was not supposed to be she took off her wooden shoe and threw it
at him, striking him on the head (Count 16). He was aged between 9 and 12.
During the course of her duties to
care for these vulnerable children, Mrs Jordan routinely picked on and
bullied the three girls. She was a
cold woman who resorted to her hands frequently and unnecessarily. There were
strong suggestions from the evidence at trial that she particularly picked on
one of the girls who spent the majority of her childhood at Haut de la Garenne
under the care of Mrs Jordan.
It is clear that the actions of Mr
and Mrs Jordan point to a pattern of repeated acts of casual violence against
these children.
Details of Mitigation:
Good character; co-operation with
the police; excellent references.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 16:
|
3 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 20:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 21:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 22:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 23:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 24:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 12 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court remarked
that the behaviour of the Jordan’s
was of the utmost seriousness as it was violence against children. They viewed Mrs Jordan as cold,
uncaring and spiteful, and of Mr Jordan; a bully.
The Court commented on
the references out before the Court on behalf of the Jordan’s. There was no doubt their character,
since leaving Haut de la Garenne, had been impeccable.
The case was so
serious they had no possible alternative other than to order immediate
custody. The Court reduced the
final conclusions in the following way:-
|
Count 2:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 16:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 2.
|
|
Count 20:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 2.
|
|
Count 21:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 2.
|
|
Count 22:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 2.
|
|
Count 23:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 16.
|
|
Count 24:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 16.
|
|
Count 27:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 20.
|
Total: 9 months’ imprisonment.
Anthony Jordan
|
8 counts of:
|
Assault (Counts 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46
and 47).
|
Age: 62.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
Mr Jordan carried out a series of
assaults on two young boys who were in his care whilst he was employed at Haut
de la Garenne. Aged in his late
twenties and early thirties at the time of the offending, Mr Jordan
regularly struck these two boys on the elbow with either a knife or metal spoon
when they were at the dinner table (counts 44, 45, 46 and 47). It was said in evidence at trial
that this was his “signature move”.
On an occasion he struck one of the
boys over the head with a shoe because he was angry with him for failing to
clean his shoes to Mr Jordan’s
satisfaction (Count 36). He was
aged between 10 and 12 years.
Additionally, on a previous occasion where the same boy refused to eat
his lunch, Mr Jordan
struck the boy across the face with his hand, knocking him off his chair and to
the floor (Count 39). It left a
blood blister under the boy’s eye.
He was aged between 8 and 10 years.
Mr Jordan regularly hit the other boy
across the face when he was aged between 10 and 13 years. In evidence the victim said that Mr
Jordan would do this for a variety of reasons including leaving the table
without asking, not finishing your food or for being cheeky.
It is clear that the actions of Mr
and Mrs Jordan point to a pattern of repeated acts of casual violence against
these children.
Details of Mitigation:
Good character; co-operation with
the police; excellent references.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 36:
|
2 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 39:
|
3 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 40:
|
2 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 41:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 44:
|
1 month’s imprisonment, consecutive.
|
|
Count 45:
|
1 month’s imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 46:
|
1 month’s imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
|
Count 47:
|
1 month’s imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 9 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court remarked
that the behaviour of the Jordan’s
was of the utmost seriousness as it was violence against children. They viewed Mrs Jordan as cold,
uncaring and spiteful, and of Mr Jordan; a bully.
The Court commented on
the references out before the Court on behalf of the Jordan’s. There was no doubt their character,
since leaving Haut de la Garenne, had been impeccable.
The case was so
serious they had no possible alternative other than to order immediate
custody. The Court reduced the
final conclusions in the following way:-
|
Count 36:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 39:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 36.
|
|
Count 40:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 36.
|
|
Count 41:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 40.
|
|
Count 44:
|
1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 36.
|
|
Count 45:
|
1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 36.
|
|
Count 46:
|
1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 40.
|
|
Count 47:
|
1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 40.
|
Total: 6 months’ imprisonment.
S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. L. Preston for Mrs M. Jordan.
Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Mr A. Jordan.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1.
All the
children who came into Haut de la Garenne did so because of some troubled or
potentially damaging incident or events in their lives, none of which were
their fault. What they needed
desperately was love and care and sympathy. What they most definitely did not need
was cruelty and violence but it was for some of them, as the Jury have found by
their verdict, that that they received at your hands. Our judgment of you, and of course I
have seen you in the course of the trial, and the Jurats have read the papers,
is that you Mrs Jordan were cold and uncaring and spiteful, and you Anthony
Jordan, were a bully. This was not,
in our judgment, heavy-handed discipline, this went further than that, it was
cruelty and totally unnecessary violence.
2.
So far as
aggravating and mitigating features are concerned there is no doubt that the
total experiences in childhood of these men and women, as they now are, have
left most of them seriously damaged in adult life. You were part of that but we remind
ourselves that it cannot all have been because of you, other terrible things
happened in their lives which will have impacted seriously on their development
as human beings in adulthood. We
bear in mind also that apart from these offences, you are people of good
character both before and more importantly since, we have read many references
speaking in glowing terms of you and there is no doubt at all that since your
tenure at Haut de la Garenne your character has been impeccable.
3.
We are dealing
with offences which took place many years ago. That is relevant in two ways; it is
argued that attitudes to physical punishment were different in those days and
so to some extent they were. We are
talking only of 25 or 30 years ago, we are not talking about the middle of the
nineteenth century. Too much can be
made of this because we have seen the rules that existed in the home and they
were, save for the fact that corporal punishment was in some circumstances
allowed, very much what one would have expected to exist. It is fair to you to say that you did
not see the rules but you do not need to see them to know that you should not do
the sort of things that you had done.
4.
The second
relevance of the delay is that it is a matter of mitigation in your case that
there has been the passage of this long period of time since the offences
before you now fall to be dealt with.
It is clear on all the authorities that in this sort of situation that
mitigation is limited, it is not as limited as it can be in relation to sexual
offences against children, but it is a limited mitigation because they were
children in circumstances where it was very difficult to complain. To the limited extent that official
complaints were made, it is clear that absolutely nothing was done about
them. We bear in mind also as part
of what has happened since, that you undoubtedly have suffered public
humiliation as a result of your arrest and prosecution. In the light of the verdicts of the Jury
that was a humiliation which was deserved because they found you guilty, as we
have indicated, of these serious offences against these children. It hardly needs to be said that offences
against children in care by those who are charged with the care of them are of
the utmost seriousness, whether they be sexual offences, which of course these
were not, or whether they are offences of violence and it is absolutely
essential in our judgment that anybody knows if they have care of children and
mistreat them in any way at all that amounts to criminal offences, when the law
catches up with them they will be treated seriously.
5.
In our
judgment the offences here pass the custody threshold; they would have at the
time and they still do now. We have
considered all the mitigation that has been set out very properly in detail by
your Advocates but we have concluded that the only possible sentence in this
case is one of immediate custody.
Those sentences will be considerably shorter than they would have been
had this been dealt with, let us say, in the mid 80’s, because of the
mitigation you have not only of the delay, but that of your impeccable life
since, and the fact that you will be serving a prison sentence at an age when
very few people have to serve a prison sentence, but it is our conclusion that
no alternative to custody is possible.
The length of the sentences will be slightly shorter than those proposed
by the Attorney-General and structured in a slightly different way.
6.
The
conclusion of this Court is that these offences are so serious that only a
custodial penalty is appropriate for them.
In your case Mrs Jordan,
the sentence will be one of 9 months’ imprisonment made up as
follows. Count 20 and Count 27; 3
months concurrent with one another, Count 2; 3 months’ imprisonment,
Count 21; 2 months’ imprisonment, Count 22; 2 months’ imprisonment,
those concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 3 months on Counts 20
and 27. Count 16; 3 months’
imprisonment, Count 23; 2 months’ imprisonment, Count 24; 2 months’
imprisonment, those concurrent with one another but consecutive to the 6
months, making 9 months in all.
7.
In your
case Anthony Jordan, the sentence will be one of 6 months’ imprisonment
made up as follows. Counts 36 and
39; 3 months’ imprisonment, Counts 44 and 45; 1 month’s
imprisonment, concurrent with one another.
Counts 40 and 41; 3 months’ imprisonment, Count 46; 1
month’s imprisonment, Count 47; 1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent
with one another but consecutive to the 3 months in respect of Counts 36 and 39,
making a total of 6 months in all.
Authorities
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in
the Superior Court of Jersey.
R-v-Dodgson [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. (S)
85.
R-v-Todd (1990) 12 Cr. App. R. (S)
14.
AG-v-Bradley
2000/60.
R-v-Durkin (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S)
313.
R-v-Rayson [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. (S)
317.
R-v-Ali [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 120.
R-v-Martine G [2007] 2 Cr. App. R.
(S)
Attorney General’s Ref No 105
of 2004 (S. H.) [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S).