Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/230

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th November, 2000.

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff,

                                                      Jurats de Veulle, and Bullen.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Candia Mildred COOPER

 

4 counts of                                                                             larceny

                  Count 1: on which count a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment was passed;

                  Count 2: on which count a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed;

                  Count 5: on which count a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed; and

                  Count 6: on which count a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed;.

TOTAL: 4 months' imprisonment.

Accused released on bail conditional upon lodging within 7 days of the date hereof notice of application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

[On 11^th October, 2000, the accused pleaded not guilty to counts 3,4, and 7 of the Indictment, which pleas the Crown accepted.]

 

Age:    40

 

Plea: Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of larceny of a total of approximately £1,500.00 of funds belonging to a Children's Ten Pin Bowling Club.   The accused had been elected Chairperson of the club in March 1998 and had taken possession of the cheque book and paying in book in respect of the club's funds when the former Treasurer of the club resigned.   When pressed by the new Treasurer to hand over the financial records of the club, the accused made a series of excuses in order to deflect such enquires.  She stole approximately £420.00 of the club funds which had been raised by selling football cards to patrons of the bowling club; she stole approximately £420.00 of subscriptions which had been paid over by the children on a weekly basis when they attended to compete; she drew cheques in the total value of £580.00 made payable to cash from the club's bank account.   She had steadfastly denied her involvement in the matter until very shortly before her scheduled Assize trial.   The prosecution therefore submitted that she was not due much, if any, credit for the guilty plea, given the lateness in the day of it being offered.   In addition these were particularly mean offences because they involved stealing from children in the sense that the club funds were held for the ultimate benefit of the children.   It was also submitted by the Crown that the fact that the accused was clearly of some intelligence and had a professional book-keeping qualification and had been employed by a major firm of accountants, that, in an Island which enjoys full employment, she had no excuse for resorting to crime where she had the intellectual ability and qualifications to obtain honest employment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The accused was in a long term relationship with the father of her two children, aged 10 and 12 respectively.  The accused, for the first time in the probation report, acknowledged that she was under some financial pressure and had used the proceeds of her fraud to fund household expenses as opposed to luxuries.   The defence advanced two arguments by way of mitigation; firstly that there had been a substantial delay between the time that she was first interviewed and the date of her being sentenced; and secondly that, as an act of mercy, she should avoid imprisonment on the basis that her children would suffer greatly as a consequence of any incarceration.   As regards the former ground of mitigation it was submitted on behalf of the Crown that the delay in bringing the accused to Court was in fact the fault mainly of the accused who had regularly failed to keep appointments with the Police for interview and who had steadfastly maintained her denial of the offences in circumstances where she must have known she was guilty, right up until some two weeks before the scheduled trial.   The Crown therefore submitted that she could not avail herself of this line of mitigation because she herself had contributed substantially to the delays involved.   As regards the latter, the Court accepted the Crown submissions that the starting point for breaches of trust cases was a custodial sentence and only if the defence could show exceptional circumstances by way of mitigation will it be proper for the Court to depart from that established principle.  In the particular circumstances of this case the Court was unable to identify any such exceptional circumstances and therefore the Court acceded to the Crown's recommendations to imprison the accused.

 

Previous Convictions:     None.

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                             4 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 5:   3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 6:   3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

TOTAL: 6 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances by way of mitigation to justify a departure from the stated and established principle that those found guilty of breaches of trust should be imprisoned.   In particular the Court rejected the defence submission concerning issues of delay.  The Court held that the delay had been substantially contributed to by the accused herself in the way that she conducted herself.   Accordingly the Court slightly reduced the Crown's conclusions and ordered that the accused be sentenced as follows:

 

Count 1:         4 months' imprisonment.

Count 2:         4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 5:         3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 6:         3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

TOTAL: 4 months' imprisonment.

Accused released on bail conditional upon lodging within 7 days of the date hereof notice of application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

 

Remarks

 

Immediately following sentence being passed, the accused made an application for bail pending appeal, which was granted on the basis that the sentence, being a relatively short one, would probably have been served by the time the appeal came on for hearing.   Accordingly the accused was bailed on her own recognisance, subject to the restriction that she should not leave the jurisdiction and that she should notify the Attorney General's Chambers should she change address before the next court appearance.   In addition the Court required defence counsel to give an undertaking to file a Notice of Appeal without delay, and this undertaking was given to the Court by defence counsel.

 

 

                                        M. St. J O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate;

                                               Advocate S.E. Fitz for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            These were particularly mean offences.  Monies paid by children into the hands of the defendant were quite cynically stolen and used for the defendant's own living expenses.

 

2.            Counsel for the defendant has put forward two particular matters in mitigation.  First, it is said that there has been a long delay in bringing the case to a conclusion.  This is undoubtedly true, but having looked carefully at the circumstances in which the delay has arisen we are not impressed by this argument because we consider that the defendant was in large part herself responsible for such delay as has occurred.

 

3.            The second point put to us was that the defendant has two children aged 12 and 10 and it has been submitted that the children will be punished if the defendant is sent to prison.  It is, sadly, inevitable that when adults commit serious offences their families suffer as well.

 

4.            We have given anxious consideration to this particular point in mitigation but we do not think that the particular circumstances of this case justify a departure from the general rule which is that persons who steal in breach of trust should receive custodial sentences.  We are going to take account of that factor, however, in reducing the conclusions which would, in our judgment, otherwise be perfectly correct.  We are therefore going to sentence you, Miss Cooper as follows: on counts 1 and 2, you will be sentenced to four months' imprisonment; on counts 5 and 6, to three months; imprisonment; all those sentences to be concurrent, making a total of four months' imprisonment.

Authorities.

 

A.G.-v-Altham (26^th January, 1996) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Apperley (7^th February, 1997) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Roberts  (1^st May, 1998) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Hamilton (3^rd June, 1999) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Horgan (20^th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Horgan (22^nd January, 1999) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Blake (18^th August, 1995) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Halsall (9^th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G.-v-Picot (20^th May, 1990) Jersey Unreported

 

R-v-Barrick [1985] 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142

 

A.G.-v-Preston (7^th April, 1986) Jersey Unreported

 

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey": p.45.

 

A.G. -v- Gladwin (11^th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- McMeiken (27^th July, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Godwin (30^th October, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Sutherland (21^st March, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Murphy (14^th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Whelan (12^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Strzelecki (2^nd February, 1996) Jersey Unreported.