1999/104 - AG v Gladwin [1999] UR 104 (11 June 1999)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Gladwin had pleaded guilty to count 3 but not guilty to counts 1 and 2 but had been unanimously found guilty at an Assize Trial on 11 May 1999.

Counts 1 & 2 - Gladwin embezzled his employers of £874.00 by diverting a cheque paid as a deposit for purchase of furniture to his own account. He falsified accounting records by omitting to enter the receipt of the amount of £874.00 which was the sum paid by way of deposit.

Count 3 - Gladwin stole a video and hi-fi valued £777.00 which he had bought on HP from Channel Rentals.

Background report showed a very difficult upbringing. Gladwin had already been in prison so had already served a custodial sentence to some extent. There were exceptional circumstances which justified the Court following the social enquiry report recommendation for non-custodial sentence.

Count 2: 4 months imprisonment, concurrent

Count 3: 2 months imprisonment, consecutive

Total: 6 months’ imprisonment

Sentence & Observations of Court: 2 years Probation; 180 hours Community Service.

Compensation Orders: C.R. (Jersey) Ltd.: £400 with interest or 1 month’s imprisonment in default of payment.

A clear breach of trust case. The Court had considered very carefully whether there were exceptional circumstances of the type detailed in the Barrick case to justify a non-custodial sentence. The social enquiry report made disturbing reading in relation to Gladwin’s family background. The Court also noted the Crown’s comments that the matter should have been dealt with in its entirety at the Magistrates Court. The Court was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify a non-custodial sentence.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This case, however we look at it, involves a breach of trust. Whether it could be regarded as exceptional under the terms of the English case of Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142, which has been approved several times in this Court, is a question that has exercised our minds considerably and we have been very greatly helped in that context by Advocate Scholefield.

The elderly gentleman who came to buy a sofa for his sister’s Christmas present did so in good faith. He wrote a cheque. The payee, he was told by Gladwin, would be entered in with a stamp. Of course, as soon as the elderly gentleman had left the shop Gladwin entered his own name on the cheque.

Now, it is all very well for Mr. Scholefield to talk of the traumas of an Assize Trial but the immediate victim, the elderly gentleman, also had to face those traumas. Nothing in our view will convince Gladwin that he is not in some way justified in his actions against his former employer but honest employees do not act in that way, whatever their situation, and in our view the sooner that Gladwin realises that the better. He also falsified accounts. Mr. Scholefield has again given the explanation that he gave before the Assize Trial, but the jury did not accept that explanation and nor do we.

The stealing from C R (Jersey) Limited was a decision made for reasons which might be understandable in context but again do not reflect to Gladwin’s credit.

We have considered the very detailed Probation Report, and we are very grateful to its author. In our view, it makes for disturbing reading. Gladwin’s family background has been remarkable for the fact that he, of all his brothers, has led a comparatively crime free life until now.

The Crown Advocate has repeated to this Court that this matter should have been dealt with in its entirety in the Magistrate’s Court. Gladwin has already spent two months in custody on remand. That clang of the prison gates has had a marked impression on him as we read in the Probation Report.

The Probation Officer makes a strong recommendation for community service as an alternative to custody and Mr. Scholefield has this morning convinced us that in law this is not a case where imprisonment must immediately follow. Stand up, please, Gladwin. We are going to sentence you to 2 years Probation which will include 180 hours of Community Service and we are going to make two Compensation Orders. The first is in favour of C R (Jersey) Limited. We understand - we hope you have got this right, Mr. Scholefield - that you have repaid voluntarily some £377. The balance with interest at the Court rate until repayment in full must be paid at the rate of £42 per month. Obviously if you can repay it earlier so much the better. That sum, of course, is paid to the Viscount. The first payment is to be made at the end of August and in default of that we sentence you to 1 month’s imprisonment. The second sum of £874, that Mr. Trenear paid from his own pocket, you will pay at £50 month, again from the end of August, and again one month imprisonment in default. Because it is paid to the Viscount you must liaise with Mr. Scholefield and if you get into any difficulty over that payment you must immediately tell the Viscount or Mr. Scholefield that you are in difficulty and arrangements will be made because what we do not want to happen, and I am sure what you do not want to happen, is that you have to serve a term of imprisonment for non-payment.

Now, I also have to tell you, of course, that the Probation Order has to be served in its entirety. If you do not serve it properly, of course, the Probation Officer will report back to this Court and you may have to face a penalty for not doing that.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/104 - AG v Gladwin [1999] UR 104 (11 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/104.html Cite as: [1999] UR 104

Jersey Unreported Judgments