Inferior Number Sentencing - telecommunications - sexual grooming of a
female child - drunk and disorderly.
[2019]JRC186
Royal Court
(Samedi)
20 September 2019
Before :
|
A. J. Olsen, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff, and
Jurats Ronge and Nicolle.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Miguel Angelo Pereira De Freitas
Sentencing by the
Inferior Number on 26th July, 2019, following guilty pleas to the
following charge:
1 count of:
|
Sending, by means of a public
telecommunications system, a message or other matter that was grossly
offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, contrary to
Article 51(a) of the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002. (Count 1).
|
1 count of:
|
Sexual grooming of a female child, contrary
to Article 15(5) of the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018. (Count 2).
|
1 count of:
|
Being drunk and disorderly. (Count 3).
|
Age: 25.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1
On 30th October, 2018,
Cheyenne O’Connor (Ms O’Connor) was posing as a 13 year old girl
named Leila Daly on Facebook. She
received a friend request from Miguel FREITAS (the Defendant). She replied and
the Defendant told her she “was
beautiful and to keep the conversation between the two of us”. Ms O’Connor told the Defendant
that she was 13. Within hours the
Defendant was asking her for photographs of herself, specifically in a bikini. The Defendant made the conversation
sexual and sent her a photograph of himself and one of his erect penis. The Defendant told her “You’re going to have sex with
me, it’s not beautiful and it’s going to be your first”
and “yes it hurts and only at the
beginning”.
Ms O’Connor then wrote to the
Defendant about meeting and he suggested meeting at West Centre on 1st
November, 2018. The Defendant then
blocked the Leila Daly profile. Ms
O’Connor provided Police with screen shots of the chat log between
herself and the Defendant.
On 17th March, 2019,
(after the incidents that give rise to Counts 2 and 3) Ms O’Connor
received another friend request from the Defendant to her ‘Leila
Daly’ Facebook account. She accepted the request and saw that it
was the same man who had been in contact with her in October 2018. This Facebook profile stated that it was
created on 13th February, 2019.
On the same day, the Defendant sent ‘Leila Daly’ a Facebook ‘wave’. She did not respond, but again provided
screenshots of this communication to the Police.
Count 2
The complainant on Count 2 is 12
years old. She lives with her
parents and her elder sister. On 16th
February, 2019, the complainant sent the Defendant a friend request on
Facebook. The Defendant responded
by messaging her back and they began communicating via Facebook Messenger. The complainant told the Defendant she
was only 12 years old. The
Defendant replied that she was beautiful, that he wanted to have sex with her
and he sent her a picture of his penis.
The complainant told the Defendant that he could be arrested if anyone
knew about their conversation and the Defendant replied “I know but you delete all our conversations, right?”. On 27th February, 2019, after
the messages from the Defendant became more sexually graphic, the complainant
told her sister about the conversations.
The complainant’s sister
contacted Ms O’Connor to ask her for advice. The sister and Ms O’Connor went to
the Police Station to report their concerns.
Count 3
During the evening on 27th
February, 2019, Police Officers attended to a report of a disturbance in the
area of Lewis Street, St Helier. On
arrival the officers noted that the Defendant was acting in a loud and animated
manner. He made threats towards his
former partner who at the time was pregnant with his child. These threats were made in
Portuguese. The Defendant was
warned about his behaviour.
Officers attempted to calm the
Defendant down and offer assistance, but he became very angry and started
shouting. He was asked to keep his
voice down as they were in a built up, residential area. He refused to leave the area and
continued to shout and make demands.
He was given numerous warnings and was seen to punch a wall in an
aggressive way. The Defendant was
arrested the Defendant for being drunk and disorderly.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, letter of remorse.
Previous Convictions:
One previous caution for theft
(2017) on the records before the Court.
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
6 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
18 months’ imprisonment, consecutive.
|
Count 3:
|
2 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 2 years’ imprisonment.
Order sought under Article 5(1) of
the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law that a period of 7 years elapse before
the accused is permitted to apply no longer to be subject to the notification
requirements to run from date of conviction.
Restraining Order sought to
commence from date of sentence for a period of 7 years under Article 10(4) with
the following conditions:-
a) That the Defendant is prohibited from using any
device capable of storing electronic data unless he makes such device available
on request for inspection by a police officer and at the same time he provides
the police officer with full access by whichever means access is achieved to
enable such data to be analysed;
b) That the Defendant shall notify the Offender
Management Unit of all devices he owns, or to which he has access, which are
able to store electronic data;
c) That the
Defendant is prohibited from having any unsupervised contact or communication
of any kind with any female child under the age of 18 years, other than:
i. Such
as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily
life; or
ii. With
the consent of the child’s parent or guardian who has full and accurate knowledge
of his conviction and who is not subject to restrictions under the terms of any
order pursuant to the said Law.
d) That in
circumstances where the Defendant finds himself in breach of paragraph c above,
he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as is
reasonably practicable;
e) The Defendant
must allow access to any accommodation which he owns, lives in or from time to
time stays in to police officers who are checking upon this Order;
f) The
Defendant must allow access to any vehicle owned or used by him to police
officers who are checking upon this Order; and
g) The Defendant is
prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the victims of
Count 1 and 2.
Recommendation for deportation sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1:
|
6 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
2 years’ imprisonment, consecutive.
|
Count 3:
|
2 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 2 years’ 6 months’
imprisonment.
Order under Article
5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law that a period of 6 years should
elapse before the Defendant is permitted to apply no longer to be subject to
the notification requirements to run from date of conviction. -
Restraining Order to
commence from date of sentence for a period of 6 years under Article 10(4) with
the following conditions:-
a) That the Defendant is prohibited from using any
device capable of storing electronic data unless he makes such device available
on request for inspection by a police officer and at the same time he provides
the police officer with full access by whichever means access is achieved to
enable such data to be analysed;
b) That the Defendant shall notify the Offender
Management Unit of all devices he owns, or to which he has access, which are
able to store electronic data;
c) That
the Defendant is prohibited from having any unsupervised contact or
communication of any kind with any female child under the age of 18 years,
other than:
i. Such
as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily
life; or
ii. With
the consent of the child’s parent or guardian who has full and accurate
knowledge of his conviction and who is not subject to restrictions under the
terms of any order pursuant to the said Law.
iii. Such
contact with his daughter (or such other child born to him) that is
unsupervised and not opposed by the children service (or permitted by order of
Court in legal proceedings).
d) That
in circumstances where the Defendant finds himself in breach of paragraph (c)
above, he has a positive duty to remove himself from that situation as soon as
is reasonably practicable;
e) The
Defendant must allow access to any accommodation which he owns, lives in or
from time to time stays in to police officers who are checking upon this
Order;
f) The
Defendant must allow access to any vehicle owned or used by him to police
officers who are checking upon this Order; and
g) The
Defendant is prohibited from having any contact, direct or indirect with the
victims of Count 1 and 2.
Recommendation for
deportation made.
C. M. M. Yates, Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE lieutenant BAILIFF:
1.
We
announce the sentences this evening for reasons that will be given in a
judgment to follow at a later date.
Those reasons will be delivered as soon as possible.
2.
Mr De Freitas
would you stand up, please.
3.
On Count 1,
there will be a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
4.
On Count 2,
there will be a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment, consecutive.
5.
On Count 3,
there will be a sentence of 2 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent. Thus, making a total of 2 years’
and 6 months’ imprisonment, in all.
6.
As far as
notification under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 is concerned
there will be a period of 6 years before which you may seek to have the notification
requirements disapplied.
7.
As far as
the restrictive orders are concerned we make the orders moved for by the Crown
at paragraph 18 of the conclusions, but we are going to add to that paragraph
18(c)(iii) as moved by defence counsel.
8.
The
restrictive orders will be for 6 years from today.
9.
Finally,
deportation. The twin tests of Camacho
v Attorney General [2007 JLR 462] are both met and therefore we shall
recommend your deportation at the conclusion of the sentence.
10. Members of the press, you will know about
reporting restrictions. We should
not really have referred to the victim even by initials, and would you please
avoid doing that? I know you
understand.
11. We wish to thank counsel for their help in this
matter.
Authorities
Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002
Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010
Camacho
v Attorney General [2007 JLR 462]
Attorney
General-v-W [2016] JRC 235
Attorney
General-v-B [2015] JRC 022
Attorney
General-v-Olivotti [2013] JRC 128
Extract from Sentencing Guidelines of
England and Wales
Attorney
General-v-Z [2011] JLR 107.