Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - indecent images.

[2024]JRC092

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 April 2024

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Cornish

The Attorney General

-v-

Edward John Blampied

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 counts of:

Making indecent images of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (Counts 1, 2 and 3).

Age:  47

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 14 September 2023, Police Officers executed a search warrant at the Defendant's home address and 12 electronic devices were seized. 10 of the devices were examined and one device was found to contain indecent images of children ("IIOC").  No moving images/videos were found on the devices but the total number of still images found was as follows:

 

Category	Total
A	44
B	81
C	443
Total	568

 

The IIOC found showed mainly girls ranging in ages from approximately 3 years old upwards.  There are 15 IIOC of young boys included in the total ranging from approximately 5 years old to 13 years old.  The majority of all the IIOC are children under the age of 10 years old.  All the IIOC were located in thumbcache files.  The thumbcache files were created on 26 November 2022, the date that the Windows 10 operating system was installed by the Defendant and were last modified on 11 September 2023.  This indicates that the IIOC were viewed within this timeframe.

 

The Defendant's mobile phone was downloaded and no IIOC were found.  However, 900 Instagram 'cached' pictures and movies of young girls modelling, dancing and/or posing in swimwear and/or leotards were found.  The images were not indecent but did demonstrate the type of material being viewed by the Defendant.  These images were viewed on the phone between 29 August 2023 and 13 September 2023.

 

The Defendant was interviewed twice.  In his first interview he answered no comment to all questions.  In his second interview he accepted that the device which contained IIOC belonged to him and that he had searched for and viewed the IIOC as he knew it was a taboo subject matter and this helped him find a release for his OCD.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea, cooperation with police (passwords to devices).  He made admissions in his second interview and was co-operative with police by providing passwords to his devices.  The Defendant has engaged with Adult Mental Health Services to address his issues.  Defence provided the Court with a psychological report which was considered by the Court.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	(Category A)  2 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	(Category B)  16 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	(Category C)  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the device which contained the IIOC and £5,000 prosecution costs.  Notification for a minimum period of five years sought.  Restrictive Orders sought for four years. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	(Category A) 312 hours' community service (equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment) and two-year probation order.
Count 2:	(Category B) 200 hours' community service (equivalent to 14 months' imprisonment), concurrent.
Count 3:	(Category C) 120 hours' community service (equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment), concurrent.

Total:                         312 hours' community service (equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment) and a two year probation order.

As a result of his conviction for a relevant offence, the Defendant became subject to notifications under the 2010 Law.  The Defendant is subject to these requirements for a period of 5 years before he may seek to have the notification requirements dis-applied.

A Restrictive Order in the following terms will run from the date of sentence, for a period of 4 years:

That the Defendant is prohibited from:

1.     Possessing and/or using any device capable of accessing the internet that has or could enable digital image viewing unless:

a.            He has notified the States of Jersey Police Offender Management Unit ("OMU") in advance of the acquisition of any such device;

b.            If it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use (including social media), he does not delete such history;

c.            If is has no such capacity, the OMU has given permission for the use of such a device; and

d.            He makes the device available on request for inspection by a Police Officer, or other Police employee, and he allows such person to install risk management monitoring software if they so choose.

2.   Possessing and/or using more than one smartphone, one tablet, one games console and one laptop/PC without prior permissions of the OMU.

3.   Possessing any device capable of storing digital images e.g. a USB stick or external hard drive, unless the OMU has been notified of such possession in advance and it is made available on request for inspection by a Police Officer or other Police employee.

4.      Interfering with or bypassing the normal running of any computer monitoring software.

5.      Using or activating any function of any software which prevents a computer or device from retaining and/or displaying the history of internet use e.g. using 'incognito' mode or private browsing.

6.      Installing any encryption or wiping software on any device other than software which is intrinsic to the operation of the device.

7.      Possessing and/or using software or hardware to encrypt or otherwise hide his IP address.

8.      Using any 'cloud' or other remote storage media capable of storing digital images (other than that which is intrinsic to the operation of the device) unless, prior to the creation of an account for such storage, he notifies the OMU of that activity, and provides the password to such storage on request for inspection by a Police Officer or other Police employee.

9.      Refusing access to Police Officers who are monitoring or checking on this Restraining Order, and refusing to allow officers entry to any premises he occupies or is in control of for the purposes of searching for relevant devices.

These prohibitions shall not apply to devices at the Public Library or any educational establishment, or provided that he has the prior permission of the OMU, his place of work.

Forfeiture and destruction of the device which contained the IIOC ordered.

Costs ordered in the sum of £2,000, to be paid within 14 days.

Crown Advocate L. Taylor for HM Attorney General

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Edward John Blampied, you are 47 years old and fall to be sentenced for downloading 568 indecent images, 44 of which were in the most serious Category A.  Police officers executed a warrant at your home on 14 September 2023.  A number of electronic devices were seized.  The images in question were found on a laptop and mainly consisted of indecent images of girls from the ages of approximately 3 upwards.  There were 15 images of boys aged between 5 and 13 years.  Most of the images showed children under the age of 10.

2.        When you were first interviewed by the police you made no comment, but in your second police interview you admitted you had searched for and viewed indecent images of children, and you knew that it was illegal to do so.  You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity when you appeared before the Magistrate's Court and accordingly you will receive full credit for those pleas.

3.        Having regard to the case of Godson, the key factors for the Court to consider are as follows.

(i)        You are a 47 year old adult with no previous convictions. 

(ii)       The number of images was significant but there is no evidence you distributed them to third parties. 

(iii)      You appear to have made the images in the course of, at most, just under a year.

4.        The Probation officer assesses you as being at medium risk of sexual reconviction and low risk of general reconviction.  You have voluntarily engaged with the Adult Mental Health Services since you were arrested.  We have listened with care to what has been said on your behalf.  These offences are so serious that generally only a custodial sentence can be justified, and the custody threshold is met in your case too. 

5.        Stand up please.  We direct that you are subject to the notification requirements under Article 5 of the 2010 Law for a minimum of 5 years.  We are satisfied that it is appropriate to make the Restrictive Orders under Article 10 of the 2010 Law as we are satisfied that you pose a threat of serious sexual harm, and it is necessary to protect the public from such harm by making those orders.  We make those orders for the period of 4 years in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Crown's conclusions.  We order that you make a contribution to the Crown's costs in the sum of £2,000.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the laptop which was the device seized which contained the indecent images. 

6.        We have read both the Pre-Sentence Report and the report from Dr Briggs.  You had a difficult childhood.  You have suffered from poor mental health for many years which contributed to this offending.  You were fully cooperative with the police.  You fully accept that what you did was wrong and exhibit genuine remorse.  Dr Briggs says in his report that you were asked whether the viewing of illegal images of children was wrong, and he reports that you were clear that it is.  Dr Briggs says that he (that is you) said that not only is it wrong in the eyes of the law but it is also wrong because of the involvement and impact on the well-being of children.  Dr Briggs says that you spoke of children's innocence and the need for them not to be objectified sexually; and that you understood that these images of children and the abuse image industry would affect child victims in the longer term with their adulthoods compromised.

7.        You have now spent 7 weeks in custody and the Court has to determine, whilst ensuring that you are punished, whether the public interest lies in sending you back to La Moye to start a custodial sentence or to put in place a package of measures that will address your offending.  We have concluded that the second approach is clearly the most appropriate in your case.  You will serve 312 hours' community service, a direct alternative to 2 years' imprisonment. 

8.        You will be subject to a two year Probation Order with conditions that you attend such courses as directed.  Those courses will include the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abuse programme for men convicted of sexual offences.  That is a course that will last up to 18 months and it is designed to tackle attitudes towards abuse, and we have heard from the Probation officer in court today is believed to have a significant impact on the likelihood of reconviction. 

9.        The Probation Order will also ensure that you are subject to risk management, and that you have continued engagement with Adult Mental Health Services.  The Probation officer has undertaken referrals to provide you with a safety net of support including a referral to "stop it now" via the Lucy Faithful Foundation which is a charity which supports those who have viewed or are at risk of internet-based offending; a referral to the Alcohol and Drug Service Relapse Prevention Service programme; a referral to Jersey Talking Therapies and a referral to the psychological assessment and therapy service for one to one therapy support to address your childhood trauma.

10.     We hope that you take advantage of the support that you will be offered by the Probation Service and that you carry out the hours of community service which we have ordered that you perform.  Any breach of the order is reserved to this Court, and any breach will result in a custodial sentence.  Do you understand?

11.     The costs are to be paid within 14 days. 

Authorities

Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994.

Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.

AG v Godson and Crowley [2013] JRC 091.

AG v Harris [2021] JRC 307.

AG v Matthews [2020] JRC 186A.

AG v Salsac [2017] JRC 125.

R v Smith and Ors [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82.