Restraining order extended for sex offender who deleted browsing history

Saturday 28 April 2018

A restraining order on a 67-year-old sex offender has been extended for 10 years after he downloaded applications capable of deleting his browsing history, contrary to the terms of the order.

Michael John Huby was sentenced to eight years in prison in 2012 after he was convicted of one count of rape and one of gross indecency.

The Court heard that Huby appealed his conviction unsuccessfully in 2013, and continues to deny his guilt.

As part of his sentence, Huby received a 10-year restraining order which prohibited him from "acquiring, possessing or using any computer software which possesses the capability to destroy, delete or disguise internet activity on any device which may access the internet." 

Huby was released from La Moye on 6 June 2017. Seven weeks after his release, police officers visited his home and found a tablet computer, which Huby admitted he was the only one to use. No indecent images or videos were found on the tablet but police officers found what they described as "search terms of concern." They also found two 'cleaning' applications which both had the capacity to destroy, delete or disguise internet activity and therefore breached the order.

Forensic examiners found that Huby had searched how to clean the graphics processing unit and his recycle bins just five days after his release and on the same day he was searching “extreme pornography.” 

The Royal Court heard that Huby also admitted in interview that he had used the tablet to search for pornographic stories and images. Crown Advocate Richard Pedley told Court that the search terms used indicted that Huby "was searching and finding pornographic material of the most extreme sort." 

Pictured: Michael John Huby appeared in Royal Court after he breached a restraining order which had been imposed in 2012.

Huby admitted downloading the applications but said he did not realise that they would potentially disguise his internet activity and that his breach was therefore technical. Crown Advocate Pedley however said the Crown rejected his version of events saying that Huby had seen officers from the Offender Management Unit (OMU) who explained what the restraining orders meant. The Crown also said that both applications stated they were cleaning or clearing softwares and wouldn't get downloaded automatically. 

Crown Advocate Pedley suggested that Huby be sentenced to 12 months in prison as he said "neither community service or probation would be appropriate in the case." He also asked for the restraining orders to be extended and made clearer to avoid any unintended breaches.

Advocate James Bell, defending, told Court that the breaches had been unintentional. 

He said that the terms of the restraining order didn’t need to be reinvented as Huby had only breached one element. The Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, however added: “One doesn’t need much common sense to see that this defendant should be subject to some serious constraint under a restraining order.”

Advocate Bell continued saying the new wording would set an even higher risk of Huby falling into an “unintended” breach and that it was disproportionate to extend it by 10 years. “He is keen to get on with his life in a proper and normal way,” he concluded his address to Court. 

Pictured: The Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, said it was clear that Huby should be "subject to some serious constraint under a restraining order."

Returning the sentence, the Bailiff, who was sitting with Jurats Collette Crill and Rozanne Thomas, said that given the circumstances and the basis on which Huby pleaded guilty, the Court chose not to impose any further sentence of imprisonment. Huby had already served the equivalent of just over 10 months in custody as the proceedings progressed.

The Court however said it was appropriate to extend the restraining order by 10 years from the date of sentencing and to amend its terms.

Under the new restraining order, Huby will not be able to use any device capable of accessing the internet which does not retain and display the history of internet use. He is also prohibited from downloading any software and applications without the prior approval of the Offender Management Unit (OMU). The Bailiff warned Huby to “ arrange his internet usage so that he has a choice whether or not to download any application,” and that the obligation rests on him “to make inquiries to prevent himself from offending.”

Huby is also prohibited from having any unsupervised contact or communication with anyone under the age of 16, unless the parents or guardian know of his conviction and have given consent.