Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/131

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

8^th June 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin John Foster

 

1 count of:

indecent assault.

 

Age:     45.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.              

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant bought a mobile phone for the victim and told her to telephone him whenever she wanted.  Whenever victim met defendant he would always find the opportunity to touch her leg.  On 13^th October 2000 the defendant gave the victim a lift home in his car after school and during the journey placed a £5 note inside the victim's bra and then fondled her bare nipple.  He asked her to remove her top.  On 17^th October 2000 the defendant went to police headquarters and confessed to having committed an indecent assault.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Initial probation report suggested assessment at Wolvercote Centre.  The defendant was found to be unsuitable, not because he had failed to co-operate but because he lacked cognitive ability to adhere to the programme.  The psychiatric report painted a grim picture of a serial sex offender with a poor prognosis for a "treatment order".  The psychological reports were similar.  Guilty plea; remorse; very short period of offending; no apparent violence.  

 

Previous Convictions:

Four for offences against persons; four for sexual offences; three for offences against property; one for theft.

 

Conclusions:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We have no doubt that this would have been a distressing incident for the victim.  Nevertheless, we accept that what you did in this particular case is towards the lower end of the scale of such offences.

2.        In the circumstances we have considered very carefully whether a non-custodial sentence would be the best sentence in order for you to receive treatment in the hope of addressing your sexual proclivities.  We note Mr. Chapman's point, which is also made in the probation report, that otherwise you will be released from prison after a comparatively short while without the benefit of any treatment.  On the other hand, we note that you have been placed on probation several times before and so far this has had no noticeable effect on your offending.  We also note that the psychiatric and psychological reports are not supportive of the recommendation in the probation report.

3.        It is, in our view, very unfortunate that you were not able to go to the Wolvercote Centre through no fault of your own because that would have been a constructive alternative.  The alternative put forward here is a one-off programme with the probation service but, as we say, without the wholehearted support of the psychiatric and psychological services.

4.        In all the circumstances we think that we cannot follow the recommendation.  We do not feel confident that it would be the right thing to do in this case, having regard to the various factors I have described.  We think that the Crown has allowed fully for all mitigating factors in relation to what occurred and the points which Mr. Chapman has made.  In the circumstances we grant the Crown's conclusion and we sentence you to 12 months' imprisonment.

No Authorities