Court dismisses "vulnerable" teen's appeal against sexual assault conviction

Thursday 12 July 2018

A "vulnerable" teenager - who was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register after putting a member of care home staff in a headlock and forcefully grabbing her breast - has had an appeal against his conviction dismissed by the Royal Court.

The youth, who has not been named, was handed his sentence in the Youth Court back in 2017 when he was 15 years old.

He was charged with two offences relating to “inappropriate behaviour” with female employees at the residential children’s home where he lived. 

The first complainant said that he had hugged her while she was preparing dinner, and “squeezed her bottom” while doing so.

At around 23:00 that evening, a second member of staff, who was said to have known the boy well, said she was also assaulted. She reported that the teenager approached her from behind, placing his left arm around her neck and grabbing her breast with his right hand.  

Describing the incident in a hearing before Relief Magistrate Le Cornu, Mr Martin and Mrs Peters, the victim recalled: “So, 11 o’clock, I went to leave and [the Appellant] was coming out of the dining room and he approached me from behind and it was very, very quick.  So, I just felt his left arm coming up round my neck and then it was really, really quick and then the other hand, the right hand, came round and basically touched my left breast area… It was a very forceful hold around the neck and at the same time as being pushed backwards with the situation I was in, the hand just came very hard and firmly and it was literally a grab and then I said, you know, ‘Don’t be so silly’.”

The version of events was supported by an independent witness, but the teen nonetheless told the Court, “I wasn’t in the house.” 

He was subsequently acquitted of the first sexual assault charge, as, “although he had pinched her bottom, the Court did not consider that this was done in an angry, revengeful, rude, insolent or hostile manner.”

But the second offence was viewed far more seriously, leading to an indecent assault conviction and placement on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

Advocate Julian Bell argued last month, however, that this conviction should be overturned. He said that it was wrong that both charges were considered at the same time rather than separately, as this could taint the Youth Court panel’s judgement, and that the Prosecution had also failed to disclose documents from the care home that they should have done prior to making their judgement.

The Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, who was presiding over the appeal, said that these arguments had no merit. He refused to overturn the conviction, arguing that the assault would have been "troubling and unpleasant" for the member of staff.

In his concluding remarks, however, he explained that the Court was sympathetic to his vulnerability and that they generally tried to avoid placing young people on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

"This Appellant is clearly a vulnerable young man.  As a result of circumstances which are absolutely not his fault, he has found himself in the care of the States. From that fact one can infer that he may not have yet come to appreciate the different boundaries which apply to all of us in how we react to others. Young people do sometimes react adversely to any form of authority, whether parental or States authority. That is so commonplace as to be entirely natural. Nonetheless, all of us have to learn where the boundaries are."

The Bailiff later observed: "The stigmatisation of young people by their appearance before the Youth Court is a factor which the prosecution routinely do take into account in considering whether or not a prosecution is necessary in the public interest.  Incidents of the kind which have led to this prosecution would in most cases where the defendant was not in care have resulted in peremptory domestic justice rather than criminal proceedings.  The young person concerned would in an ordinary household be expected and be expecting to receive the firmest of warnings that this was unacceptable and to abide by such warning thereafter.  It appears from the Residential Notes and in part from the evidence actually given before the Youth Court that the care workers in this case have previously attempted to deliver such warnings to this Appellant, but they have been disregarded.  He should use his intelligence to learn from that."

The youth will have to apply to the Court in future for removal from the Sex Offenders’ Register.