Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/89

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

25^th May, 2000

 

Before:    M.C. St J Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats Le Ruez, and Rumfitt.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Robin John Le Cras

 

 

 

17 counts of fraudulent conversion (counts 1 - 17, inclusive):

37 counts of fraud ( counts 18 - 54 inclusive).

[On 5^th May, 2000, the accused pleaded not guilty to counts 8, 9, which pleas the Crown accepted.]

 

 

Age:   46.

 

Plea:      Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Between 1^st August and 19^th November, 1998 whilst acting as a freelance travel agent, Le Cras fraudulently converted a total of £15,443 of funds received from persons as payment for holidays and flights which were never booked.  Approximately 25 individuals were victims of the fraudulent conversion counts.  Between 7^th April and 17^th November, defrauded the Employment and Social Security Department of £5,490 in benefit cheques whilst working as a freelance travel agent.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Plea of guilty (albeit late in the day, three weeks prior to trial but immediately after prosecution had been granted leave to file an amended indictment reducing the number of counts for fraudulent conversion following directions hearing on 20^th April, 2000).  Significantly Le Cras expressed  remorse for the first time in relation to effect of this and past offending behaviour on family, friends, and victims ( and as evidence of such remorse offered to repay Social Security and victims). 

Although previous convictions for offences of dishonesty,  gap in record between 1988 and 1998 ( when present offences committed). 

Delay:  (first, 1999; trial date fixed for 22^nd May, 2000).  In custody since 6^th March, 1999 and has spent equivalent to 1 year, 9 presented before Magistrates' Court on 17^th March, 1999 - after arrest in England;  paper committal on 29^th September, 1999; indicted 5^th November months, and 13 days in custody. 

Limited co-operation.  Answered questions at first interview to assist Police with their  enquiries and refusal to answer questions at subsequent interviews was because of legal advice he had received not to answer questions.

No initial intention to defraud:   Number of bookings became too much for him; lost track of bookings, only resorted to fraud because situation had got out of control.  Started business by supplying friends with cut-price tickets; word spread and business expanded to include persons not known to Le Cras;  obtained loan of £2,500 from his father; had idea to set up "bucket shop" type business; made enquiries, learnt that all travel agencies had to be ABTA bonded and ABTA would not permit " bucket shop" type operations;  then agreed with his wife that he would curtail his activities; by now word had spread and was taking numerous bookings; enjoyed the notoriety and popularity he achieved by providing cheap holidays; business expanded; obtained personal account at local Travel Agency ; no discounts on prices offered by the Agency, or requested by Le Cras, and Le Cras paid going rate; had no administrative skills, did not keep records.

 

Previous Convictions:          1978 Embezzlement ( 3 months' imprisonment)

                                          1981 Theft ( 3 months' imprisonment)

                                          1986 Credit fraud ( probation)

                                          1987 Obtaining property by deception ( 5 months)

                                          1988 False pretences ( 12 months)

                                          [1997 conviction for false pretences ( probation)  related to offence in 1988/9]

                                       

 

Conclusions:         Counts 1 - 7, 10 - 17:  2 years imprisonment on each count, concurrent.

                            Counts 18 - 54:   1 ½ years imprisonment on each count concurrent, and concurrent with the sentence passed

                            on Counts 1 - 7 and 10 - 17.

 

                            TOTAL:  2 years' imprisonment.                   

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:      Counts 1 - 7, 10 - 17: conclusions granted.

                                                            Counts 18 - 54:  6 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent. but consecutive to

                                                            sentence passed on counts 1 - 7 and 10 - 17.

                                                           

                                                            TOTAL:  2 ½ years' imprisonment.

                                                                                                   

Crown too generous in its conclusions; criminality of fraud on Department of Employment and Social Security ( which would attract 12 to 18 months sentence on facts of this case) needs to be marked by a consecutive sentence which in view of the totality principle is reduced to 6 months.  Delay from date of first presentation before Magistrates'  Court to date of paper committal is not unusual in complicated cases.  Although no comment interview given on legal advice accused cannot now complain of delay.  Late change of plea does not attract full one third discount.                      

 

 

                                              P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate

                                     Advocate A.J.D. Winchester  for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE  DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.                  This was a deliberate fraud, albeit doomed to failure.  The defendant offered travel arrangements and holidays to people at well below cost value.   He kept the proceeds and did not make the travel arrangements for those persons referred to in the charges contained in the indictment.

 

2.                  The total which the defendant obtained over a 3 ½ month period, was some £15,443.00.  At the same time he was fraudulently in receipt of invalidity benefit. Between April and November, 1998,  he received a total of £5,490.78, to which he was not entitled because he was working as a freelance travel agent.

 

3.                  We have no doubt that the fraud in relation to the travel arrangements caused distress, and of course financial loss,  to a number of people.   Mr Winchester has put forward a number of matters to us in mitigation.  He points out the plea of guilty, albeit that this was made late in the day,  and therefore the weight to be given to it cannot be the same as it would have been had the plea been entered from the start.

 

4.                  He refers to the defendant's remorse, and, in particular, to the matters set out in paragraph 18 of the Social Enquiry Report.  We would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to this report.  It is an example of all that is good and helpful in a social enquiry report.   Paragraph 18 points out that the defendant has made effective use of his time in prison, has found Christianity and is clearly remorseful for what he did.

 

5.                  Reference is also made to the delay in this case.   The delay initially was because the defendant fled the Island.  However he was arrested and brought back in March, 1999, and a period of 6 months followed before he was committed for trial at the end of September.  During his interviews he had - whilst giving some assistance - largely given 'no comment' answers,  and had not assisted the police in their enquiries. 

 

6.                  We have no doubt that this sort of case requires detailed investigation and analysis by the police, and we regard the time of 6 months as being quite reasonable. Particularly where the defendant has not assisted fully, it hardly lies in his mouth then to complain of the time that has been taken to investigate the matter.

 

7.                  He has a bad record for dishonesty but there is a considerable improvement from 1989. Only three minor offences,  of a different nature to the present charges,  have been committed since then, and we certainly give full credit for that and very much hope that,  following completion of the sentence in this case, he will revert to the way in which he was behaving from 1989 until these offences were committed.  We note his intention to re-pay.

 

8.                  However, even allowing for all these matters in mitigation, this was a serious and deliberate fraud which continued for a period, and involved a number of victims.  We think that the Crown's conclusions for this offence are correct.

 

9.                  Turning to the social security fraud, this Court has said before, and says again, that these amount to a fraud on the general public.  Funds which are needed for the benefit of those in need are diverted to those who are not entitled to them. This fraud continued for some 7 ½ months and involved a total of some £5,490.00.   Taking account of all the circumstances, we find that a sentence of some 12 to 18 months would normally have been the appropriate sentence for these offences.  

 

10.              They are of a wholly different nature to the offences in relation to the travel business.   On the Crown's conclusions there will be no extra punishment for these social security offences.  They are serious offences and we believe that there must be something extra to reflect the fact that the defendant has committed these offences as well as the travel company offences.   However, we have regard to the totality principle.  We think that it would be excessive to impose a consecutive sentence of either 12 or 18 months,  which we have said to be the correct sentence in principle for the social security offences, and we propose therefore, only because of the totality principle, to reduce the sentence for the social security offences, but to make it consecutive.

 

11.              Stand up please Mr Le Cras.  On Counts 1 to 7, and on Counts 10 - 17, you are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment concurrent on each Count.   On Counts 18 - 54 you are sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, concurrent with each other, but those will be consecutive to the sentences on Counts 1 - 7, and 10 - 17.  In other words you are sentenced to a total of 2 ½ years imprisonment.

 

 

Authorities

 

A.G -v- Ryall (14^th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

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

A.G -v- Ogilvie (29^th May, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

Livingstone Stewart and Others (1987) 9 Cr. App. R. (S) 135.

A.G -v- Pritchard (20^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Fitzsimmons (1^st October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Cooper (7^th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Harris (27^th March, 1997) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Andrade (10^th September, 1999) Jersey Unreported.