Notification order lifted on “easily led” child sex offender

Friday 09 February 2018

A boy with learning difficulties whose older brother led him into sexually abusing his young sister when he was between 10 and 13 years old will no longer be subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders’ law.

The boy – now 20 and known only as ‘N’ to protect the identity of his sister – and his older brother narrowly escaped jail time when sentenced in the Royal Court back in 2015.

After hearing how the pair had kept a lookout for each other while they took it in turns to have sex with their younger sibling when she was still of primary school age, the Deputy Bailiff sentenced the pair to community service.

N was handed 180 hours – equivalent to 12 months – and placed on the Sex Offenders' Register along with his brother.

Since then, he has been subject to ‘notification requirements’ – an obligation to inform Police of all travel plans, changes of address, and be searched and give DNA samples upon request.

Pictured: The case was heard at the Royal Court before the Deputy Bailiff, Tim Le Cocq.

But Advocate Marks argued in January this year that N should be taken off in light of his autism, which was diagnosed after his offending. The Court was told that this meant that it was “highly likely that… [he] would not have thought about or realised the right or wrong of his behaviour.” 

The Court heard that he was a “vulnerable young person… trying to move his life forward in a positive way.”

A Police report showed that he had so far complied with his requirements and always completed relevant paperwork “promptly.” Moreover, he “engaged well” with officers and was reported to be at “low risk.”

However, they did express concern that N had “ignored advice” and kept in contact with another Sex Offender who had been a childhood friend. But the Court was informed that he “intends to address” this.

Pictured: The young man had to give Police regular updates on where he was staying and his travel plans.

A psychologist confirmed that N’s sexual interests were now “age appropriate.” He was also reported to have been a “motivated” worker who had made “tangible progress” and completed courses on victim impact, sexual offending, and consent.

The Crown did not oppose the application.

The Deputy Bailiff, who sat with Jurats Crill and Olsen, concluded in his judgment: “In committing the offence, it is clear that the applicant was under the influence of his older brother which, perhaps because of his autistic condition, he was more easily led to commit than might otherwise have been the case.  

“He is now an adult and although he has challenges there is no suggestion that he is other than low risk.  In our view it was appropriate to discontinue the notification requirements and we so ordered.”