LUIS DE NOBREGA SENTENCED IN JERSEY FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES AND POSSESSION OF INDECENT IMAGES

On 11 October 2012, the Superior Number of the Royal Court in Jersey delivered a comprehensive sentencing verdict for Luis De Nobrega, aged 59, following his guilty pleas to multiple serious charges related to child exploitation and possession of indecent images. The case stemmed from a series of disturbing offences committed at a lodging house in Jersey, where De Nobrega served as a caretaker, and involved the exploitation of two young girls, identified as Child A and Child B.

De Nobrega was remanded by the Inferior Number on 3 August 2012, and the subsequent trial revealed a pattern of heinous misconduct. The charges included two counts of possessing indecent photographs of children, contrary to Article 2(1)(b) of the Protection of Children (Jersey) Law 1994 (as amended), and three counts of taking such photographs, in violation of Article 2(1)(a) of the same law. Additionally, he faced a count of meeting a child following sexual grooming, under the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2007, and a count of creating indecent pseudo-photographs of children, also under the Protection of Children Law.

The offences were committed within the context of De Nobrega’s role at the lodging house, where he had access to the children of families residing there. Evidence presented during the trial detailed how he kept a basement workroom equipped with computer hardware, which was seized during a police search warrant. The computer was damaged during the search, necessitating specialist examination from the UK. Investigators also recovered numerous broken CDs, indicating the extent of his illicit activities.

Specifically, the court found that De Nobrega had stored and viewed multiple indecent images on his computer, including four movies—two classified as level 4 and two as level 5—and twelve photographs, categorized across various levels of severity. Among the most disturbing evidence was the series of indecent photographs taken of Child A when she was just eight years old. These images depicted him pulling aside her knickers to expose her genitalia, engaging in masturbation, and pulling her buttocks apart. Such acts demonstrated a clear pattern of sexual abuse and exploitation.

Further, the court heard that De Nobrega had developed a close relationship with Child A’s family, having invited them to move into the lodging house. Child A was only six years old at the time. He spent considerable time in their private space and occasionally looked after her. The evidence revealed that he had bought her expensive gifts, including a mobile phone, a television, and a Nintendo DS. Child A, when interviewed, recounted that she saw the defendant almost daily. She described an incident where he attempted to kiss her and unzipped his trousers, revealing his underwear. When she questioned him about his actions, he told her it was because she was pretty and had a good body shape. The forensic psychologist described Child A as highly vulnerable and particularly susceptible to grooming, which made her an easy target for De Nobrega’s predatory behavior.

Additional charges included a photograph of Child A’s buttocks taken while she was lying face down, and a photograph of her genitalia taken after she was instructed to pull up her skirt and pull her knickers aside. The court also found evidence of pseudo-photographs created by superimposing the faces of children, including Child B, onto adult pornography images stored on De Nobrega’s computer. Although no charges were filed specifically for these images, the defendant admitted that they were intended to be used to produce pseudo-photographs as part of his guilty plea.

In mitigation, De Nobrega’s legal team highlighted his guilty plea, albeit late, after the children had been informed they would need to give evidence. His counsel acknowledged that he recognized he had a problem and expressed a desire to seek help. Letters from his wife, sister, and mother—who was unaware of the full extent of his offending—were also presented to the court.

De Nobrega had no previous convictions, which was noted during sentencing. The Crown argued that the offences could be categorized into two main groups: possession of indecent images and the grooming, photographing, and creation of pseudo-photographs involving Child A. The court considered these factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Sentencing guidelines led to a total term of five years’ imprisonment. The court ordered that, under Article 5(1) of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, a period of ten years must pass before De Nobrega can apply to be released from notification requirements. Furthermore, a restraining order was issued for ten years, prohibiting him from contact with children under 16 unless accompanied by a parent, guardian, or an adult over 21 aware of his convictions. He was also barred from being alone with Child A or Child B.

De Nobrega was mandated to produce any electronic devices capable of internet access for police inspection upon request and was prohibited from owning or accessing devices that could delete browsing history unless such history was retained. The court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of all computer equipment used in the offences.

Finally, the court declined to recommend deportation, focusing instead on the severity of the offences and the protective measures imposed. The sentence was delivered in accordance with the guidelines from the case of Wicks v. The Law Officers of the Crown, Guernsey, 2012, which influenced the sentencing structure. The total imprisonment period was set at five years, with conditions attached to the restraining order and electronic device restrictions to prevent further harm and protect potential victims in Jersey.