DAVE LE MARQUAND'S SHOCKING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE IN JERSEY REVEALS DISTURBING DETAILS

On the 28th of February, 2003, a significant case involving David John Le Marquand, a 34-year-old resident of Jersey, came to the forefront of criminal proceedings. Le Marquand pleaded guilty to serious charges related to the possession and creation of indecent images of children, a crime that has sparked concern and outrage within the community.

The investigation uncovered approximately 2,700 indecent photographs, including video clips, all depicting children. These illicit materials were stored on the hard drive of Le Marquand’s personal computer. Further examination revealed that some of these images had been duplicated onto physical media—specifically, 37 photographs printed on paper and 313 copies stored on floppy disks. The charges against him included a single count of possession related to the hard drive, alongside 35 counts of making, copying, and distributing these images via paper and disks.

Authorities confirmed that the images fell into all five levels of seriousness as classified in the landmark case of Oliver and ors [2002] EWCA Crim 2766. All the material had been downloaded from the internet, indicating a deliberate effort to acquire and reproduce these illegal images. The case highlighted the disturbing extent of Le Marquand’s involvement in the creation and dissemination of child exploitation material.

In mitigation, Le Marquand’s legal representatives pointed to his immediate cooperation with authorities and his guilty plea, which demonstrated remorse and a willingness to accept responsibility. Background reports presented to the court indicated that he was of good character and posed no threat to children, emphasizing that the charges were not related to distribution but rather to the possession and creation of the illicit content. The prosecution clarified that the counts related to making the images were based on the fact that such actions contributed to the proliferation of this harmful material within Jersey.

Le Marquand had no prior criminal convictions, which was taken into account during sentencing. The court considered the appropriate penalties for the charges, with Count 1 resulting in a 15-month prison sentence. For Count 2, which involved 36 counts of making and distributing images, the court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment on each count, with all sentences to run concurrently. The judge acknowledged the need for caution in determining the exact quantum of punishment, given the higher statutory maxima, and noted that the principles outlined in Oliver and ors provided a reliable guide.

While no order for the forfeiture of Le Marquand’s computer was made at this time, the court reminded that such an order could be issued under the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law, 2001. The case has raised important questions about legislation, especially regarding the differences in maximum penalties between England and Jersey, which the Legislation Committee was advised to review. Overall, the court’s decision reflected a serious stance against child exploitation, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the need for appropriate punishment to protect the community.