Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Larceny

[2020]JRC181

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 September 2020

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Olsen and Christensen

The Attorney General

-v-

Jane Danielle Dolby

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Larceny (Count 1).

Age:  50. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

In November 2017 the defendant was appointed as Treasurer of the Jersey Dressage Club ("the JDC").  The JDC is funded by annual membership fees and fund-raising activities organised by its members.  At the time of her appointment, the JDC held two HSBC bank accounts.  In January 2018, two further accounts were set up with Barclay's Bank in the name of the JDC with the defendant as a signatory to both these accounts (and the other signatory being the JDC Chairperson, Mrs Le Vesconte).

 

The defendant possessed the card reader which authenticated payments, and had access to the online banking account which could be used to make transfers and payments from the Barclay's accounts without knowledge of the other committee members.

 

On 13^th March 2018, the defendant transferred the balance of the HSBC accounts, £31,932.39, to the Barclay's accounts and then closed the HSBC accounts.  The Defendant's offending began that same day when she transferred £130 from the JDC's main Barclay's account, into her own personal account.

 

Over an 18-month period, the defendant abused her position of trust in order to steal £23,380.  By September 2019, the balance of the JDC Barclay's account had reduced to £2,006.98.  In October 2019, Mrs Le Vesconte reviewed the JDC's financial position and realised the significantly reduced account balance.  A meeting was held on 13^th October, 2019, at the defendant's home address and she struggled to answer questions regarding the accounts.  She later confessed to Mrs Le Vesconte that she had in fact taken the money but would return it.  Having repaid £2,000 to the JDC on 13^th October, 2019, the defendant repaid the remaining £21,380 on 23 July 2020.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas, previous good character, cooperative with police investigation.  Repaid the JDC the full amount that was stolen.

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. McClure for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of larceny, namely for stealing £23,380 from the Jersey Dressage Club ("the Club"), of which she was the Honorary Treasurer.  The Club was established in 2006 and is a small club which at that time had 75 members.  Its aims were to provide a social environment for horse riding and dressage enthusiasts, to organise local horse riding events and competitions and to provide financial support to members who needed to travel outside of the island to compete.  It was funded by annual membership fees and fundraising activities organised by its members. 

2.        When she was appointed Honorary Treasurer the Club had approximately £32,000 in its bank account and the thefts took place between 13^th March, 2018 and 5^th September, 2019, during which time a total of £23,380 was stolen; the description given to each of the many transfers being intended to disguise the thefts.  When the matter came to light there was only some £2,000 left in the Club's account. 

3.        The Crown have taken us through the questions posed in the case of R v Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R. (S.) 142 and giving our answers:-

(i)        The quality and degree of trust in the defendant was in our view absolute.  She was a signatory on the account and the only person with online access.  Complete trust was placed in her by the members to look after the Club's financial affairs.  She had been appointed treasurer because she worked for a local bank and was considered well placed to fulfil this role.

(ii)       The offending took place over 18 months.

(iii)      The defendant explained to the Probation Officer that the monies were used to meet her credit card bills, to pay veterinary bills for her horses, one of which had become ill, to pay the mortgage on the house she owned jointly with her husband and to meet general household expenses.  It appears that she was the main breadwinner working for a local bank, her husband being semi-retired.

(iv)      The stolen monies have now been repaid in full, but apart from the shock to the members the impact upon the Club has been serious and it came close to being shut down by its members.  Fortunately, through hard work and dedication it appears to have survived. 

(v)       New committee members have had to spend considerable time dealing with the consequence of these thefts and the understandable loss of confidence of some of the Club's members. 

(vi)      The defendant has lost her employment at the bank and her employment prospects.  Her home has been sold and her pension drawn down in order to replay the Club in full. 

(vii)     The defendant is of good character.

(viii)    There is no mitigation special to the offender which, in the Crown's view, can be considered exceptional and with which Advocate McClure, acting for the defendant, agrees. 

4.        Indeed it is often a sad feature of this kind of offence as noted by Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey that it involves offenders of previous good character who cooperate with the police, who plead guilty, who evince an intention to repay the money stolen or as here actually repay the money stolen, who lose their employment and employment prospects, who show genuine remorse, which we accept the defendant has here, and who cause severe damage to family life.  As often as not they suffer in some particular way that makes a genuine emotional appeal.  These are all features which apply in this case but they are common place and the Court cannot treat them as exceptional.  It has been the consistent policy of the Court over many years that offences which involve a violation of trust will be punished by a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances and in this case the prosecution move for a sentence of 2½ years.

5.        We have been referred to a number of cases involving larceny in breach of trust for the purpose of comparison, namely the cases of AG v McDermott [2019] JRC 157A, AG v Egre [2018] JRC 028, AG v Barnett-Roberts [2013] JRC 042B, AG v Oliveira [2012] JRC 018 and AG v Pallot [2010] JRC 122, and whilst the sentences imposed in these cases reflect their differing facts and mitigation it seems to the Court that the sentence sought by the Crown in this case is arguably too high.  For example in AG v McDermott the defendant was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for the theft of £151,000 in breach of trust from two charities over 2½ years and he attempted to cover up his dishonesty by issuing documents that he forged.  In AG v Barnett-Roberts the defendant was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months for stealing £46,000 in breach of trust from a playgroup association and this over a period of 2½ years.  The money was used to support his lifestyle but he was not a person of good character.  He had not cooperated with the authorities and he had used delaying tactics throughout the proceedings.  In addition some of the offences were committed whilst on probation and serving community service orders.

6.        We have taken into account all of the mitigation put forward by Advocate McClure, in particular the defendant's current mental health difficulties and the letters that have been given to us and the references.  We note that the defendant is assessed by the Probation Department at a low risk of offending, but there is no question that the defendant's offending justifies a substantial sentence of imprisonment.

7.        Mrs Dolby would you like to stand up please.  You are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.

8.        We would like just to add this, that whilst it is absolutely no excuse for the dishonesty of the defendant in this case it is a reminder that committee members of clubs such as this have a responsibility to ensure that controls are put in place to ensure that all of the club funds are properly safeguarded. 

Authorities

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

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. 

AG v McDermott [2019] JRC 157A. 

AG v Egre [2018] JRC 028. 

AG v Barnett-Roberts [2013] JRC 042B. 

AG v Oliveira [2012] JRC 018. 

AG v Pallot [2010] JRC 122. 

AG v Picot [1990] JRC 074. 

AG v Nichols [2017] JRC 093A.