Sentences Involving Child Pornography in Guernsey
| Author | Alisdair A. Gillespie |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2012.76.3.768 |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal of the Island of Guernsey |
Court of Appeal of the Island of
Guernsey
Sentences involving Child Pornography in Guernsey
Wicks, Sharp and Towers vLaw Offices of the Crown, CA, 22 March 2012
Keywords Child pornography; Sentencing; Guernsey; Guidelines;
Aggravation; Mitigation
Wicks pleaded guilty on 4 November 2010 in the Royal Court to 14
counts of making an indecent photograph of children, the allegations
being that he had downloaded 1,346 images. He was sentenced to three
years and six months’ imprisonment with an extended sentence of two
years.
Sharp pleaded guilty on 29 November 2010 in the Royal Court to seven
counts of making an indecent photograph of a child, the allegations
being that he had downloaded 537 indecent images of children, that
being 502 still and 35 moving images. He was sentenced to four years’
imprisonment with an extended sentence of two years.
Towers was convicted in the Royal Court on 18 February 2011 on an
indictment alleging seven counts of making indecent images of children,
the particulars being that he had downloaded 147 still images and seven
video images. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ impris-
onment with an extended sentence of two years.
H
ELD
,
REDUCING THE SENTENCE OF
W
ICKS AND
T
OWERS BUT UPHOLD-
ING THE SENTENCE OF
S
HARP
, the Court of Appeal laid down guidance on
how to sentence for these types of offences. The Court decided that the
(revised) categories set out by the (then) Sentencing Guidelines Council
for England and Wales would be the primary factor along with the
activity of the offender. The initial guidance for each category of offence
is:
Category 1. Where an offender has been concerned in any way in
the taking or production of an image falling within
levels 4 or 5, an initial figure in the region of six years’
imprisonment would be appropriate.
Category 2. Where the offender has similarly been involved in the
taking or production of an image falling with levels 2 or
3, an initial figure in the region of four years’ imprison-
ment would be appropriate.
Category 3. Where an offender has similarly been involved in the
taking or production of level 1, an initial figure in the
region of two years’ imprisonment would be
appropriate.
Category 4. Where an offender has made an image, or possessed an
image for distribution or show, falling within levels 4 or
5, an initial figure in the region of three years’ impris-
onment would be appropriate.
206 The Journal of Criminal Law (2012) 76 JCL 206–212
doi:10.1350/jcla.2012.76.3.768
To continue reading
Request your trial