R. v. Playfair
[2023] NICC 15
In the Crown Court for the Division of Belfast
ICOS Number 21/089414, 21/007938, and 21/059533
Before Justice Rafferty, KC
Decided on May 09, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Sentencing in a case involving 23 counts of child sexual abuse, disclosure of private sexual photos and videos, and blackmail

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Theft (NI) Act, 1969 (Section 20)
• The Criminal Justice (Evidence etc.) (NI) Order, 1988 (Article 15(1))
• The Protection of Children (NI) Order, 1978 (Article 3(1)(b))
• The Sexual Offences (NI) Order, 2008 (Article 3, 16(2), 17(1), 22A)
• The Justice (NI) Act, 2016 (Section 51(1))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The defendant, Jonathan Playfair, was accused of various offences involving three victims: AB, CD and EF. All of them were underage girls at the time of the offences.
• The offences included sexual touching, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, possession, distribution and blackmail of indecent images of children, sexual communication with a child, and disclosure of private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress.
• The defendant met the victims through social media platforms like Facebook and Snapchat. He used different accounts to contact, coerce and threaten them. He also met some of the victims in person, engaged in sexual acts with them, and recorded them on his phone.
• The police found evidence of the indecent images and videos on his phone, as well as the messages he sent to the victims and their families after his phone was seized.
• During the interview, he stated that he believed the victims were of legal age. He also believed that they engaged in sexual activities and allowed him to record and share images and videos.
• The court had to consider whether the defendant met the threshold for dangerousness under the 2008 Order. Moreover, the court had to consider if he should be subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).
• The defendant pleaded guilty to 23 counts on three separate bills of indictment. The court considered him to meet the threshold for dangerousness under the 2008 Order. As a result, the court sentenced him to an extended custodial sentence of 6 years imprisonment and 4 years of extended supervision.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The Crown’s counsel argued that the defendant met the legal threshold of dangerousness. Hence, the court should consider this in sentencing.
• The defendant’s counsel mentioned that he has already pleaded guilty to 23 counts.

Opinion of the Bench

• The nature of indecent material and the extent of the defendant’s involvement determine a particular offence’s seriousness. In the given case, the offence was quite serious.
• The terms of the SOPO sought by the Crown’s counsel are necessary and proportionate.

Final Decision

• The court imposed six years of sentence on each count along with a monetary fine.

Adyasha Sahoo, an undergraduate student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University Ahmedabad, Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, and Khilansha Mukhija, an undergraduate student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University Ahmedabad, prepared this case summary during their internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.