[2008]JRC211

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th December 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Harry George Hayman

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction at Assize trial on 14^th October, 2008, on charges of:

Age:  69.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 17^th October, 2008, the defendant was convicted on six counts of sexual offences committed against children from the mid-1970’s to the mid-1990’s.  Counts 2, 5, 6 and 7 are offences covering more than one incident.  All the offences with the exception of Count 1 were committed by the defendant when he was teaching the children in question to play the piano.

With the exception of the indecent exposure offence from the 1970’s, the offences against the children spanned a period of ten years.  All of the victims were young, being between the ages of 6 and 14 years.  Most were very young - under ten.  The defendant targeted the youngest and most vulnerable of the children placed in his charge.  The Court held that this was a significant breach of trust.  As a piano teacher, the defendant was trusted by both the children and their parents.  Some of the offences were repeated and the overall number of offences committed was substantial.

The defendant maintained his innocence throughout and showed no remorse.  Some victims clearly distressed when giving evidence at trial.

Details of Mitigation:

Defendant was 69 years of age, a married man of previous good character.  Numerous good references from past students and parents.  Court accepted that the instances of indecent assault were at the lower end of the scale.  Low risk of re-offending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total:  3 years’ imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Court recognised that this was a case involving the indecent touching of children at the lower end of the scale and was not a case where there had been masturbation, penetration or threats.  However, the Court viewed the fact that there were six children, abused over many years, some of whom were under ten years old, as serious.  The defendant was in a position of trust from both the children and their parents.

The fact the defendant pleaded not guilty meant that the victims had to give evidence.  Whilst this did not aggravate the offence there was no mitigation available for the guilty plea.

The Court accepted that the defendant had no previous convictions, had excellent references and had been a good teacher for many years.  The offending was limited to a small minority of students and there had been no offending since 1995.

The Court agreed with the Crown’s conclusions and endorsed the approach in AG-v-Brewster 2001/3, concluding that the offending was too serious to warrant anything but immediate imprisonment.

Total:  3 years imprisonment.

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. F. Le Quesne for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have been convicted of sexual offences involving the touching of, or procuring the touching by five children and exposing yourself to another.  Offences of indecent assault vary enormously from momentary touching through the clothing to something just short of rape.  The Crown has summarised what happened in this case and we accept that your offences were towards the lower end of the scale of seriousness.  There was no penetration or masturbation and there were no threats or use of violence.  But your offending involved a total of six children; it continued over many years; in most of the cases there was repeat offending with the same child; most of the children were very young, under the age of ten; and you were in a position of trust in relation to five of them, in that you were giving them piano lessons and their parents were placing their children in your care for that period. 

2.        You pleaded not guilty and your victims therefore had to come to Court in order to give evidence.  That does not aggravate matters but it does mean that you have no mitigation available for a guilty plea, so there is no deduction from the sentence which would otherwise be passed.  Mr Le Quesne has spoken powerfully in mitigation, he has emphasised that you had no previous convictions; more than that, you have an excellent previous character.  We have read carefully the references and they speak of greatly enjoyable experiences when you were teaching them the piano and a number have written in to say that they felt entirely safe in your company.  It is fully accepted that you only offended in relation to a very small minority of those whom you taught.  Furthermore, you have not offended since 1995, you are now aged 69 and that is something which the Court considers very carefully as no Court likes to impose a prison sentence on someone of that age.

3.        We accept that you are at low risk of re-offending and we have also considered carefully the medical report and indeed everything else that Mr Le Quesne has so strongly said on your behalf.  But the Court has repeatedly said that offences involving indecency with children are serious and will almost invariably attract a prison sentence.  We would quote in particular what was said in the case of AG-v-Brewster 2001/3 by the Bailiff as follows:-

“offences of indecency involving children are regarded by all right thinking people with abhorrence.  The removal of a child’s innocence and the corruption of the trust which children naturally feel for adults are so serious that other than in exceptional circumstances they must be punished with imprisonment”.

We endorse those remarks. 

4.        We have carefully considered whether we can proceed by way of a suspended sentence as your Advocate has urged and we have assumed for this purpose that we could impose a condition that you not teach children.  But we have concluded that the offending is too serious to be dealt with other than by way of an immediate sentence of imprisonment for the reasons which the Court has repeatedly said before.

5.        We think the Crown has allowed for all the available mitigation and accordingly, the sentence we are going to impose is as follows: we are going to adjust Count 1 slightly as we think that a slightly different sentence is appropriate for that.  Count 1; 9 months’ imprisonment, Count 2; 3 years’ imprisonment, Count 4; 18 months’ imprisonment, Count 5; 3 years’ imprisonment, Count 6; 3 years’ imprisonment, Count 7; 3 years’ imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, making a total of 3 years.

Authorities

AG-v-Brewster 2001/3.

Dykes-v-AG [1999] JLR 146.

AG-v-Bouhaire 2000/212.

AG-v-Holland [2008] JRC 061.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.