Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)1

31 July 1998

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Rumfitt and Tibbo

AG

-v-

Frances Mary Young

1 count of obtaining credit, whilst in ownership of property, declared "en désastre" contrary to Article 25 (1) of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990. (count 1);

1 count of falsification of accounts (count 2);

1 count of embezzlement (count 3);

Plea: Guilty

Age: 61

Details of Offence:

£555; £5,612 and £9,401 taken and not repaid., Position of trust as manageress of a shop. Dishonesty over a period of 10 months until discovered.

Details of Mitigation:

Age; no previous convictions; guilty plea; easy to commit as owners in the UK ( but see Sproule 10/1/92) (an exacerbation)

Previous Convictions:

None

Conclusions;

Count 1: 1 month imprisonment

Count 2: 12 months imprisonment consecutive

Count 3: 12 months imprisonment concurrent

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted

AJN Dessain, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate PM Livingstone for the Accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: It would have been made very clear to Mrs Young when she declared herself "en desastre" in 1995 that she could not accrue a debt of over £250 without informing the creditor.

The debt of £550 for the hiring of a car was, in our view, a blatant act of deception on the car hire firm. Equally blatant was the way in which she systematically embezzled money from an absentee employer.

The breach of trust, in our view, was serious. It took a detailed police investigation to reveal the cash not banked by Mrs Young for the takings from the shop amounted to £9,401.76. And there was another form of deceit by false accounting which led to a further substantial loss to the Company of £5,612.55.

There were two methods used, neither was particularly sophisticated, and, of course, Mrs Young eventually co operated with the police. Whilst her salary was often not paid on time this was not a question of borrowing money with a view to repaying it; the criminal activities started almost as soon as she was employed by the Company and might well have continued for longer had she not been discovered.

She has no criminal convictions and she is 61 years of age. Her son of 18 is on the threshold of what might be an academic career. It may well have been easy to steal this money because of lack of control, and the employer could so easily have rectified the situation.

In relation to the son, whilst the Court is very sensitive to the effect that sentences of this nature must necessarily bring upon quite innocent members of a family, that sadly is one of the penalties which a convicted person has to pay.

Mrs Young has shown a total lack to remorse, perhaps because of the ease with which she committed these offences. I have to say that this case has caused the Court great difficulty but we feel obliged to follow the conclusions of the Crown and therefore you are sentenced to 1 month imprisonment on count one and 12 months’ on count two, and those sentences are consecutive.

Authorities

A.G -v- Magrico (27 February 1998) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Morrow (25 April 1997) Jersey Unreported

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