Royal Court to rule on tougher sentence for sex offender

Thursday 24 November 2016

A man imprisoned for five years and four months after committing sexual assaults on two children – one just three years old - may face longer in prison if an appeal to increase his sentence is successful.

Nicholas Price Marvin (51), a previous resident of Alderney, was found guilty of four counts of indecent assault – three of which regarded the abuse of a girl who was just three years old when the offending began and no more than seven when it ended, and the fourth relating to a teenager.

Marvin still maintains, however, that he is not guilty.

The case further came to the attention of the public after a petition calling for an increased sentence to, "...reflect the gravity of his crimes and set a new precedent for crimes of sexual abuse against children in Jersey," was launched. It was later brought to the attention of Attorney General Robert MacRae and has received nearly 1,000 signatures.

This week the Court of Appeal, presided over by Bailiff William Bailhache, Clare Montgomery QC and David Anderson QC, was told that, “...the right sentence would have been in excess of ten years,” and that Jersey should not strive for an approach to sentencing such cases, “...that is significantly more lenient,” than in England and Wales.

The Attorney General explained that when deciding an appropriate sentence, the Court was “not furnished with relevant guidelines… material I wasn’t aware of at the time, but to which I draw the attention of this court.”

He therefore moved for a jail term of 12 years and six months in accordance with English sentencing guidelines, which suggest starting points of 12 to 13 years for offences of this kind.

On Monday, Advocate Mike Preston, defending, argued against following English precedents, stating that “the Court should dismiss English sentencing guidelines from its mind when considering this case.”

He continued that if the imposed sentence is considered lenient, that it is simply, “...part and parcel of the sentencing process”, with all factors having been properly considered. 

“The Royal Court did nothing wrong in arriving at that decision… [Marvin] was sentenced properly in accordance with the principles at that time.”

Yesterday, Advocate Preston argued for, “…recognition of the anxiety and concern that a defendant would face when coming to be sentenced on a second occasion."

The Court also heard that there was, “…no evidence of threat or psychological harm.” The fact that Marvin had referred to the incident to one of the victims as a “secret” was, “…more akin to manipulation,” he said. As a result, he suggested that the sentencing should not follow precedents set in cases in which violence was present.

Nearing the end of his speech, Advocate Peston touched on the principle of ‘legitimate expectation’ - a key feature of plea bargaining in which a defendant is led to expect a certain outcome from their trial, based on a representation made to them by a legal authority.

However, the Attorney General stated that, “…no such arguments can apply in this case,” because Marvin did not enter any plea and still maintains his innocence. It follows that there is, “…no question of detrimental reliance,” on an expected sentence.

Referring to a House of Commons report, MacRae reminded the Court of the potential dangers of under sentencing: "[It] blunts the effect of law, demoralises police, causes injustice to those appropriately sentenced, …[and] may cause public danger.”

A decision on the appeal is expected this week.