 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v McMillan 07 Feb 2025 (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 040 (7 February 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2025/2025_040.html Cite as: [2025] JRC 040, [2025] JRC 40 |
||
[New search] [Help]
7 February 2025
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Christensen MBE., Le Cornu, Le Heuzé, Opfermann and Berry |
The Attorney General
-v-
Daniel McMillan
L. Sette, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. On the 23 August 2024, Daniel McMillan ("the Defendant") appeared before this Court to be sentenced for offences under the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002, one count of using threatening words, two counts of making indecent images of children and one count of making prohibited images of children and, finally, one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old female.
2. In the light of the conclusions moved for by the Crown which had been provided in advance, together with the expert evidence that we had had the opportunity of reviewing in written form at the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the Court indicated that it was minded to follow the Crown's conclusion and make a treatment order with restrictions. That is the order that we made, sentencing the Defendant to a treatment order with special restrictions and a direction that a report be provided as to the Defendant's condition 12 months hence and at 6-monthly intervals thereafter. We also imposed a restriction under the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 and a specific restriction relating to approaching educational establishments, each of 10 years' duration. The period within which the Defendant can apply to be removed from the Sex Offenders' Register was equally fixed at 10 years.
3. Although the Attorney General had recommended an order in the form that the Court ultimately made, he provided an assessment as to the appropriate sentence of imprisonment, were the Court minded to impose such a sentence. The Crown in those circumstances proposed that the terrorism offences be dealt with concurrently with a total of 5 years imprisonment from an 8 year starting point and that the prohibited images and illegal images of children be also dealt with concurrently with a total sentence of 12 months imprisonment consecutive to the sentence under the terrorism offences making a total of 6 years imprisonment. No separate penalty was sought with regard to the unlawful sexual intercourse. We did not impose such sentences but record them for future reference.
4. At the time that we sentenced the Defendant, we indicated that we would give reasons on a future occasion. These, in brief, are those reasons.
5. The Defendant, who at the time of sentencing was 27 years of age, had a fascination in carrying out a mass killing at the school in which he believed he had been bullied. That fascination commenced with him researching bombs and flamethrowers and culminated in him purchasing component parts of a flamethrower which was a weapon he had researched extensively, along with an axe and other equipment in order to kill students at the school in question. Documents planning these acts were prepared by the Defendant and he had carried out a reconnaissance of the school in question pursuant to what he described as his "misanthropic plan". His plan appeared to entail the "cleansing" of an entire generation of children similar to the ages of the children who had bullied him and it was described by the Defendant as being a vengeful and satisfactory end to his own life.
6. During the investigation of electronic devices connected to this terrorist act, the Defendant was found to have 163 prohibited images and indecent images of female children (4 at Category B and 4 at Category C). The offence of unlawful sexual intercourse occurred prior to this offending, in 2014 the Defendant, then aged 17 years old, had unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old female on at least 6 occasions over a 6-month period.
7. We do not need to state the background any more extensively than we have done. It is clear that in 2018 the Defendant had developed a fascination with the internet attention paid to mass killings and school shootings. He had an interest in the 1999 Columbine School massacre in Colorado in the United States and he extensively researched methods of killing, explosives, bombs, Jersey schools and his target school in particular.
8. It is fair to say that he had significantly progressed his planning and had begun viewing what may be described as macabre content on the internet in an effort to de-sensitise himself for the act of mass killing. By December 2022, he had advanced his planning and preparation to reconnaissance photography of the school in question and the purchase of components necessary to make a homemade flamethrower.
9. On 22 December 2022, he self-reported to Accident and Emergency saying that he felt depressed and suicidal. He made certain disclosures to a medical health practitioner expressing both suicidal and homicidal thoughts and talking about carrying out a mass killing with the use of a flamethrower. As a result, police attended upon the Defendant's home in January 2023 to conduct enquiries. The Defendant spoke freely to the officers about his plans and expressed thoughts of extreme violence.
10. He was arrested and made no reply to caution. He was then seen by two mental health practitioners and he reiterated to them his thoughts of conducting a mass killing at the school. He claimed that he had been bullied when he attended the school and that he wanted revenge.
11. A subsequent search of his home led to the seizure of a pressure jet washer, a can of petrol, canisters of liquified petroleum gases, an axe, a black balaclava-style headdress, a black cape, facemasks and mirrored sunglasses, his mobile phone and 4 hard drives.
12. His mobile phone disclosed a number of reconnaissance photographs relating to the school and an explanatory diagram about how flamethrowers work.
13. He characterised his plans and ideological beliefs in a document on his hard drive.
14. Research of his internet history showed that between May 2022 and January 2023 he had made a number of searches relating, for example, to how to build a bomb, "best weapon for decapitation" and questions such as "Is it worth going to hospital before I kill people". We do not need to characterise all of the search terms and internet enquiries nor the active interests that the Defendant had. They clearly encompassed a range of terrorist activities and mass murder.
15. Expert analysis showed that the items seized from the Defendant's home could have been used to make an explosive device or indeed to construct a flamethrower.
16. As we have already indicated, the Defendant's computer and hard drives were examined and his computer was found to contain 25 cartoon-style images of children and the external hard drive was found to contain 138 cartoon-style images of children. The same external hard drive also contained the 4 Category B illegal images of children and the 4 Category C illegal images of children mentioned above.
17. The unlawful sexual intercourse charge arises out of the Defendant's sexual relationship with the complainant in that indictment, at a time when she was 15 years of age and the Defendant was 17. They were both students at the same school and she would go to his home on Friday evenings only, during which time they routinely had sexual intercourse.
18. Although the Defendant provided no comment answers to questions put to him about the relationship, in a pre-prepared statement he accepted that sexual intercourse had taken place although confirmed that it was entirely consensual.
19. We have approached the sentencing of this matter with particular care. It is entirely clear that had the Defendant carried out his proposed attacks on the school in question, the consequences would have been unthinkable. He had gone a considerable way in the preparation of these attacks and had these preparations stood as the only information before us, they would have indicated to our mind that an horrific incident had been narrowly averted.
20. We are mindful, however, of the fact that it was the Defendant himself who revealed his plans to professionals, first at the hospital and thereafter openly to the police following the disclosure made to the mental health specialist at the hospital. We note also that his research terms had included, as we have indicated above, the question whether or not he should go to hospital before he carried out his killings or something of that nature. This, to us, suggests that although these attacks were in an advanced state of preparation, there was not a settled intention on the part of the Defendant to carry them out. In fact, he took steps to ensure that he did not and could not carry them out by making the disclosures that he did.
21. We had the benefit of psychological reports specifically from Dr Hillier who is a forensic psychiatrist and an approved practitioner under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 and also a report from Dr David Briggs to which we refer below, and Dr Iyer who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist with a special interest in autism spectrum disorders and is the responsible clinician at St Andrew's Medium Security Hospital in Northampton. The reports in sum concluded that the Defendant satisfied a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder of a nature and degree to warrant treatment. The diagnosis is associated with the Defendant's offending, as we have set out, and the risk that he presents to others and to himself. The reports recommended a treatment order under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 ("the Mental Health Law") with special restrictions imposed under Article 68 of that law.
22. The Crown characterises its recommendations in its statement of conclusions in the following terms:
"Due to the clear recommendations of the experts for a treatment order, the Crown does not move for a sentence of imprisonment (noting that the offending is too serious in any event for a community-based sentence). This decision is not made lightly but takes into account the complex and unique presentation of the Defendant and the risk that he poses. The conclusions will therefore deal with the mental health disposals the Crown invites the Court to impose "
23. In the report prepared by Dr David Briggs, he says that he had "no cause to question [the Defendant's] cognitive functioning. Whilst I suspect he may tend to exaggerate his academic achievements and overall intellectual ability, from a cognitive perspective he clearly has the capacity to discriminate right from wrong". He also said "The Defendant's profile is worrying. No guarantee can be given that he would not act on fantasies of harming others were he to be at liberty. The risk is impossible to quantify though must be considered significant".
24. Dr Bradley Hillier, in his report, concluded that the Defendant "appears to present with features of an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as narcissistic and borderline personality traits, all of which warrant a further in-depth assessment in a specialised setting".
25. There was a further assessment by Dr Iyer in February 2024 and she concluded that the Defendant satisfied the diagnostic criteria for an autism spectrum disorder. The Defendant was transferred by order of 19 April 2024 to St Andrew's where Dr Iyer is based for a further report under the Mental Health Law.
26. Further reports were prepared for sentencing. Dr Hillier confirmed that ASD was present and that it has "a close association with [the Defendant's] thinking, decision-making, interpersonal interactions and communication and vulnerabilities". The report noted that the Defendant did not accept that he had any mental disorder requiring treatment and he had a limited insight into his diagnosis and the way it impacts him. He found the label of autism to be "pathetic" and makes him feel "inferior" preferring the alternative formulation of narcissism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The report goes on to explain Dr Hillier's observations on the Defendant's mental processes.
27. In his conclusions, Dr Hillier recommended detention in a medium secure level hospital under a treatment order with special restrictions. He noted that the combination of those orders would ensure that the Defendant was detained in a hospital for an indefinite period and that he would not be granted leave, changes in level of security or discharge without oversight. In addition to the report, Dr Hillier gave evidence before us and he highlighted certain aspects of the Defendant's behaviour as covered by the report, referring to planning terrorism offences as demonstrating inability and lack of empathy. He explained how St Andrew's Hospital works and there would be a comprehensive treatment plan associated with careful testing and appropriate treatment would be available. He indicated that the Defendant would not be able to access such treatment outside a secure hospital setting. The restrictions recommended would ensure that the Defendant would only be discharged by this Court in appropriate circumstances.
28. In mitigation, the Defendant's counsel accepted the recommendations relating to the treatment order and restrictions and the restraining orders relating to school premises, the notification requirements and the restrictive orders.
29. Defence counsel pointed out that the Defendant had entered guilty pleas for which he was entitled to full credit and had no previous convictions or indeed any history of violence. It was urged upon us that, in reality, the terrorism plot was half-baked and, as we have already indicated, in effect it was the Defendant's own disclosure at the General Hospital that brought this matter to light. He had, in effect, been struggling with an undiagnosed mental health disorder. The Defendant wanted help and now has the benefit of a diagnosis which, so defence counsel urged, should be central to our considerations.
30. As we have already indicated, on one analysis the Defendant's preparation and planning indicated a terrorist action which would have been an horrific incident unparalleled in Jersey. On the other hand, looking at the evidence in the whole, we question, for the reasons we have mentioned above, whether the Defendant in fact had a settled intention to carry out the actions that he suggested he did. It was he who revealed these matters to those in authority and in our view he did this because he was seeking help.
31. We took the view that the correct way to deal with this matter was to allow the Defendant to be held in a place where he will receive the necessary assessments and treatment but to do so in a way which protects the public against his early and unwarranted release.
32. On the matters of the prohibited images of children, and illegal images of children we note that, to a significant effect, this was cartoon imagery and there were a limited number of actual photographs. We do not in any sense minimise this offending but we note that these were far fewer images than we often see before this Court and we accept that this offending, too, was a manifestation of the Defendant's mental state.
33. With regard to the unlawful sexual intercourse charge, it seems to us that this is not a matter that should give rise to any separate penalty. The offence took place a long time ago when the Defendant was 17 and the complainant was 15. There is no suggestion that the sexual intercourse was not consensual and although the complainant describes the relationship in a way which makes it clear that from her perspective it was dysfunctional, we do not think in all the circumstances a further penalty is merited.
34. Accordingly, we imposed the sentences referred to in paragraph 2 above, ordering that the Defendant be detained under a treatment order with restrictions which mean, in effect, that he cannot be released without the agreement of this Court and with reporting requirements that enable his progress under treatment to be monitored. Furthermore, we have made the appropriate further restrictive orders preventing him from going close to any educational establishments in Jersey and restrictive orders under the Sexual Offences (Jersey) Law 2018 that we referred to above.