Prison for pubgoer who smacked teenager's bottom “entirely right”

Monday 17 October 2022

A 56-year-old family carer who was sentenced to six weeks behind bars for smacking the bottom of a young woman he didn’t know outside a pub has failed in his bid to overturn his sentence.

Jack Lennie asked the Royal Court in August to agree that Relief Magistrate David Le Cornu’s decision to imprison him for the sexual touching offence against a woman nearly 40 years younger than him was “wrong in principle” and “manifestly excessive”.

But, in a judgment made public last week, the Royal Court strongly disagreed, saying it was "entirely right" that those who sexually assault women should expect to receive an immediate prison sentence.

The offence at the heart of the case took place around the Cornerhouse in April 2021.

Jack Lennie had been sitting at the same table as his 19-year-old victim, at one point commenting that she looked good.

The victim then left the Cornerhouse, and Lennie smacked her on the bottom and ran away, commenting: "That sounded like a good one." 

Pictured: Lennie was originally sentenced in the Magistrate's Court.

Lennie – who was identified by the victim during a suspect parade – had initially denied smacking the victim or even being near her when she was outside the Cornerhouse.

That changed in May 2022, when he pleaded guilty to the sexual attack on the basis that he "did not say anything about having a leather fetish or wanting to take them off", contrary to claims by the Prosecution.

Ahead of his sentencing, Lennie said he was reluctant to undertake community service as it would limit the time he had available to look after a family member.

His lawyer, Advocate Francesca Pinel, argued that the offence was "at the minor end of the scale" and that her "embarrassed" client, whose last conviction was 17 years ago, should instead be bound over.

Relief Magistrate David Le Cornu strongly disagreed.

Explaining that a smack assault was "far too serious for a binding over order or fine" as he handed down a six-week jail term and a restraining order against the victim.

"Women are entitled to walk down the street without being subjected to an assault in a sexual manner, and those who assault them can expect to receive an immediate custodial sentence," he told Lennie.

Appealing the sentence last month, Advocate Pinel sought to convince the Royal Court that Lennie's sentence was "wrong in principle" and "manifestly excessive".

She argued that the Relief Magistrate could have instead imposed a lesser sentence, such community service or a fine, and that he had placed too much weight on a statement outlining the psychological impact of the assault on the victim but not enough on some of the mitigating factors in the case.

Pictured: The Royal Court heard the appeal in August.

In response, Advocate Katie Ridley said that prison was "well within the appropriate range" for this offence. She noted that a common assault can attract up to 12 months' imprisonment, whereas the maximum sentence for an attack with a sexual element can be up to 10 years.

"A touching which has a sexual element is therefore more serious. This was a very deliberate sexual act by a man 37 years older than the victim," the judgment read.

It was also argued that Lennie had several opportunities to emphasise his willingness to do community service, but did not seize them.

The Royal Court agreed.

"He had ample opportunity to provide that consent and chose not to, leaving the Relief Magistrate with no option but to impose a sentence of imprisonment for an offence for which we agree a binding over order or a fine would have been inadequate to mark the seriousness of the offence," Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith OBE, sitting with Jurats Robert Christensen and Karen Le Cornu, said in judgment.

They said that the Relief Magistrate was "entirely right to say that women are entitled to walk down the street without being subjected to an assault in a sexual manner, and those who assault them in this way can expect to receive an immediate custodial sentence". The Royal Court subsequently concluded that the prison sentence was "right in principle" and "not manifestly excessive".

They did, however, decide to throw out the restraining order, noting that Lennie and his victim did not know each other and hadn't been in contact before or since.

Moreover, there was "no evidence of a course of conduct... amounting to harassment or which would cause the victim to be in fear of violence against her."