Court cites “vigilantism” to keep sex offender hearing private

Thursday 12 December 2019

A convicted sex offender has been granted the right to remain anonymous during a failed bid to be removed from the register, due to safety concerns arising from “vigilantism” in Jersey.

The decision from the Royal Court came after it heard that Police had to regularly patrol the home of the man, where his wife lived, after he was sentenced for downloading images involving “severe sexual abuse of children” around five years ago.

Explaining the rationale for holding proceedings behind closed doors so that no media or members of the public could attend, the Royal Court described the island’s “potential for vigilantism" as "greater than otherwise might be the case."

Although the unsuccessful application to be removed from the Sex Offenders’ Register was held in private, the Court decided to publish an anonymised judgment detailing its decision to keep the offender on the Register,  as “there is a legitimate interest in the public and the legal profession knowing how applications of this kind are treated."

The man was made subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders’ Register for a minimum of five years before he could apply to be free from them, when he was sentenced for downloading or attempting to download indecent photographs of children.

Pictured: The man was convicted of downloading or attempting to download indecent images of children.

At the time of the sentencing hearing, restraining orders were also put in place, which have also now expired.

The applicant asked that the Court deal with this matter in private due to the fact that “publicity accompanying [his] conviction created difficulties for himself and his wife.” 

The Attorney General – who is responsible for bringing all prosecutions in Jersey – “accepts that publicity about this case now could inflame passions again” and he also “recognised, in particular, the impact upon [his] wife, who is an innocent party.”

In the judgment, the Court remind themselves of the purpose of the Sex Offenders’ Register – “to protect potential victims from sexual harm, and not to further penalise the offender."

Having said this, the judgment goes onto state: “It is no part of the scheme to encourage vigilantism through publicity of applications of this kind, putting the safety of the Applicant and in particular innocent parties at risk; indeed, that would increase the burden upon the paid and honorary police, who have already deployed resources at the time of the Applicant’s conviction in regular patrols of the area in which the Applicant’s wife lives. It also seems to the Court that in a small community such as Jersey, the potential for vigilantism is greater than otherwise might be the case.”

In terms of the actual application to be removed from the register, the Court notes that in addition to the conviction under consideration, the man “has two earlier convictions for sexual offences, both of which resulted in short prison sentences and both of which he denies.”

It’s said that in relation to the conviction in question – that which is under consideration in the present application – he “made it clear from the outset that he was not going to undergo any sexual offending treatment, whether in prison or on his release. 

“His claimed rationale for engaging in looking at indecent images of children was to identify victims of abuse. He denied any sexual gratification from his sexual offending and stated that the sexual abuse of children ‘disgusts him’."

Advocate Adam Harrison, representing the applicant, made the following arguments in favour of his client being removed from the Sex Offenders’ Register:

• his client has been assessed as “towards the low end of the moderate band of” sexual reoffending;
• “he has the ongoing support of his wife”;
• his health conditions “have affected his libido”;
• removing him from the register “would enable him to start moving on with his life without trying to live under the label of ‘sex offender’”.

Crown Advocate Richard Pedley, appearing for the prosecution, opposed the application by saying that his assessment within the “moderate range” still placed him in the category that qualifies him for remaining on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

The prosecutor also said that the applicant “remains in denial as to the nature of the offences and justifies the possession of the images by saying he was looking for images of himself.”

Pictured: The written judgment outlines the Court's decision, but it anonymises the applicant.

Crown Advocate Pedley added that the applicant “has done limited work whilst in custody and refused any sexual offending treatment. He is therefore an untreated sex offender.”

The application was heard before Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, presiding, and Jurats Collette Crill and Anthony Olsen.

Ultimately, the Court decided to refuse the application for the man to be removed from the register.

Giving their reasons, they cited the “sophisticated practices” which he had used to download the indecent images, the length of time over which they were downloaded and the seriousness of their content. 

They noted also his refusal of treatment, stating: “He is, therefore, an untreated offender in denial, a denial that extends back to the two earlier contact sexual offences.” 

Drawing the judgment to a conclusion, the Court wrote: “In our view the risk of further sexual offending cannot be discounted to the extent that the notification requirements are no longer justified. We therefore refuse the application and […] we order that a further two years must expire before a further application can be made to lift the notification requirements.”