When the Cayman Islands’ Chief Magistrate, Nova hall, handed down a six months jail sentence to a 44 year old local man who admitted molesting his 8-year-old daughter and making her watch pornography including a movie of himself having sex with his girlfriend, I must confess I was shocked and very angry.

See iNews Cayman story published August 18 2013 “Petition against 6-month sentence for child abuse” at http://www.ieyenews.com/2013/08/petition-against-6-month-sentence-for-child-abuse/

I refrained from commenting on it until now because I have been in trouble with the authorities here and have been warned that some of my editorials could jeopardise a conviction. I respect the warning.

Sandra Catron, Cayman’s activist supreme head, had already executed an excellent job anyway by organising a petition against the seemingly low sentence.

Catron called on legislators to “take immediate action to implement mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences, and in particular those against children”.

I don’t think anyone will disagree with that and I am somewhat surprised there has been no minimum sentence in place.

I also 100% agree with her when she also said, “The wrong message is sent when a child rape can be committed and then the person serves less time than if they were caught with some marijuana. We have mandatory sentences for unlawful gun possession and in my opinion this is a far more heinous crime that leaves many victims in its wake.”

I was also surprised the case was heard in Summary Court as it seemed to me the crime was serious enough to warrant a Grand Court hearing.

The publishing of the sentencing made its way across the pond to the United Kingdom and I received an angry email from one of our readers who said he was eagerly awaiting a very strong Editorial from me on the subject. The reader also commented:

“In the UK that would have been at least six years followed by indefinite placement on the sex offenders register. I think the worst aspect to me is that it was handled by a magistrate that seems to show a total lack of understanding as to how serious something like this is. Here it would have been dealt with by the Crown Court, before a Judge and jury.”

Catron has not had much luck with the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) who have been seemingly hostile to her campaigns against those she considers are getting away with ‘blue murder’. In fact they are even prosecuting her for one such campaign and strongly objected to another.

However, this time the judiciary seems to be on her side.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Cheryll Richards has said her office will be appealing the six month sentence handed down to a convicted sex-offender in Summary Court last week by the chief magistrate.

CITN/Cayman27, who have also been reporting the public’s indignation on the sentencing, announced on Monday (19) evening’s News27 that they the DPP’s office had issued a short statement to them advising the matter had been reviewed by the office and a decision to appeal had been made.

Of course, Catron was delighted when she heard the news and told CNS:

“I am very pleased that the DPPs office has decided to do something about this offensive sentence. This demonstrates the power of the people’s voice in this community and we need to speak out more. This addresses the immediate issue with this particular matter but I encourage people to still continue signing the petition. The larger issue of low sentences for this type of offence has to be addressed and a long-term solution implemented. I would like to personally thank all of the people who have stepped up and voiced their opinion on this topic.”

When I researched the question of seemingly low sentencing for sexual or violent offences against children I got a surprise.

In the United Kingdom the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty Against Children (NSPCC) in July 2011 produced a report to explain and clarify the current practice around sentencing of people who have committed sexual or violent offences against children. Their investigation looked at current sentencing practice, changes in crime figures, rates of offending and re-offending, public perceptions and media reports.

This is a short summary of their report:

Our findings do not support the popular belief that offenders against children are leniently sentenced. We conclude that sentence levels are not as low as many people may believe and nor are re-offending rates as high as people may fear.

The sources of these misconceptions can be summarised as:

Media reporting of sentencing decisions that is often misleading.

The public perception that the crime rate is increasing when in fact it has been steadily reducing.

The impression that “stranger danger” is the higher risk in respect of sexual offending against children, whereas evidence shows that approximately 80% of sexual offences against children are committed within the family or by persons known to the child/children (often in positions of trust).

A widespread belief that sentences are too lenient, whereas they have been getting longer in recent years, and the prison population has been increasing (from 64,602 in 2000 to 84,275 in 2010, for example: see Berman, Gavin (2011) Prison population statistics (PDF).  [London]: House of Commons Library). By comparison, in France, with the same population as Britain, prison numbers are 59,655 and in Germany with over 20 million more people, 72,043.

Perhaps the most commonly misreported and misunderstood sentences imposed are indeterminate sentences.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). is often reported along the lines of “Only 7 years for raping a 6 year old!” leading to a sense of appalled indignation, disbelief and loss of faith in the criminal justice system. Reporting the IPP sentence imposed on the mother of Baby Peter the Daily Mail said:

“Free in three years? Outrage as mother of Baby P is given a ‘soft’ jail sentence” and “The official line is that she has been jailed ‘indefinitely’. But in reality she could be out in three years.”

In fact an IPP is an indeterminate sentence, i.e. a sentence potentially without end (a life sentence) from which the prisoner will not be released until he satisfies the Parole Board that his risk of harm to others is reduced and can be managed.

The minimum term or tariff is the earliest the offender can be considered for release. A reduction of the risk of harm has to be evidenced to the Parole Board. However, due to a lack of resources many prisons are struggling to provide the programmes that are one means by which some offenders can demonstrate risk reduction. (See section F in the full report, for release on licence).

Sentencing of offenders is a complex exercise. In addition to having regard to the five statutory purposes of sentencing (see paragraph C:11 in the full report), a judge or magistrate will consider the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s previous convictions, aggravating or mitigating factors, personal mitigation, whether and at what stage a guilty plea has been entered, totality (where an offender is being sentenced for more than one offence), the relevant law and any relevant sentencing guidelines. The report seeks to explain these complexities by looking in detail at what has become known as the “Baby Peter case” (see HHJ Kramer QC’s sentencing remarks in R v B, C and Owen (Baby Peter), Appendix 1 in the full report).

Once a person sentenced to custody is released on licence, he is subject to supervision by the probation service and in the case of most violent and sex offenders, also the police. In many cases nowadays, police and probation officers will undertake joint supervision of violent and sexual offenders utilising the skills and resources of both organisations under MAPPA (multi-agency public protection arrangements). Thus those assessed as presenting a high risk of harm to others are likely to be managed via MAPPA’s multi-agency meetings designed to facilitate the sharing of relevant information and produce an agreed risk management plan that is regularly reviewed. Many additional conditions that either require an offender to do something or prohibit him from doing something are imposed. Failure to adhere to licence conditions frequently results in recall to prison.

The report also reviews treatment and other programmes. We conclude that sentence levels are not in fact as low as many people may believe and nor are re-offending rates as high as people may fear.

END

There are some lessons we can learn from that report, namely the IPP – “the indeterminate sentence, i.e. a sentence potentially without end (a life sentence) from which the prisoner will not be released until he satisfies the Parole Board that his risk of harm to others is reduced and can be managed. The minimum term or tariff is the earliest the offender can be considered for release.”

The good thing to come out of all this is the now public’s awareness that something must be done in providing adequate MINIMUM sentences for these types of offences.