ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
6 February 1998
Before: FC Hamon, Esq., and Jurats
Vibert and Quérée
AG
-v-
Andrew Hugh Cooper
21 counts of Fraud
Plea: Guilty
Age: 44
Details of Offence:
At the time of the offences Cooper was employed as a Projects Manager. Over a period of nineteen months, Cooper ordered equipment from suppliers in the United Kingdom which was paid for by his employers. He then delivered the equipment to contractors in the United Kingdom. The contractors were invoiced by Cooper who received the payments under the invoices into either his personal bank account or through a company he had acquired. His employers were defrauded of a total of £23,250.96. All paperwork missing in relation to the transactions. No evidence of remorse, though he had effected a virtually total refund of the defalcated sums out of the sale of his house. Not helpful to the Police. The guilty pleas had been entered very late in the day.
Details of Mitigation:
Previous Convictions:
Speeding (1974); Driving with excess alcohol (1991).
Not considered relevant.
Conclusions:
2 years imprisonment on each count, concurrent
Sentence and Observations
of the Court:
18 months imprisonment on each count, concurrent
Cooper had only been discovered through the diligence of one of the United Kingdom contractors, and had they not raised the alarm, he may well have carried on his course of action, It is to his credit that he has repaid most of the money. Although there has been a long delay before trial, Cooper only has himself to blame as he did not assist the police investigation. The fraud was part of series and betrayed a flagrant a flagrant breach of trust by a senior employee in whom confidence had been reposed. Barrick was quoted and approved. The Conclusions, however, could be slightly reduced below the two years imprisonment sought by the Crown.
AJ Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate J Martin for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Cooper has pleaded guilty to 21 counts of fraud and this involved, in effect, dealing with five English companies. As Miss Martin has told us, Cooper initially worked hard for the company that employed him, was trusted by his employers, and was given a position of authority and trust. From that he built up a system of fraud that was not particularly sophisticated. He was the Projects Manager of the company. He ordered goods in England which were paid for by the company and he then sold them to contractors and ensured that payment was either made to himself personally or to his UK registered company. It is quite certain that his employers knew nothing of that company’s existence.
His fraudulent activities might not have readily come to light had it not been for the diligence of an employee of one of the English companies who came over to Jersey to talk to him about it. But, then, had that company not gone into liquidation Cooper might, for all we know, have carried on his activities making the matter ever more serious as time went by.
Cooper destroyed all the documentation relating to these fraudulent transactions and steadfastly refused to admit his guilt until very late in the day. In fact, from the carefully prepared Probation Report made in January of this year, it seems to us surprising that he was still at that time unable to grasp that he had taken advantage of what was a fraudulent system to line his own pocket to the financial detriment of his employers.
We cannot see that there was any significant assistance given to the police and he really has only himself to blame for the delay, or most of the delay, but it has been significant; over two and a half years and over that time he has lived with the shadow of this eventual judgment hanging over him.
He has repaid the monies, or most of the monies, that he took from the company and that is to his credit.
We have no doubt that this is a case where one can employ the words in the rationale of the Court of Appeal in Pagett -v- AG (1984) JJ 57 Cof A, where the offence was described as being of a serious character involving a flagrant breach of trust by an employee in whom full confidence was reposed and we have no doubt at all that a case of this seriousness warrants a custodial sentence in all but exceptional circumstances. We have had very careful regard to the qualitative indications given in the English case of R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 CrApp. R (S) 142 where the Court said this:
"The following are some of the matters to which the court will no doubt wish to pay regard in determining what the proper level of sentence should be: (i) the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank; (ii) the period over which the fraud or the thefts have been perpetrated; (iii) the use to which the money or property dishonestly taken was put; (iv) the effect upon the victim; (v) the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence; (vi) the effect on fellow-employees or partners; (vii) the effect on the offender himself; (viii) his own history; (ix) those matters of mitigation special to himself such as illness, being placed under great strain by excessive responsibility or the like, where, as sometimes happens, there has been a long delay, say over the two years, between his being confronted with his dishonesty by his professional body or the police and the start of his trial; finally, any help given by him to the police."
Now, Miss Martin has said everything that she could, in our view, in mitigation. We are prepared to reduce the sentence slightly. Stand up, please, you are sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.
Authorities
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp. 55 - 63; 76-81
Ibid: Noter Up May 1994 - 1995: p28
Ibid: Noter Up, May 1995-1996: pp. 19 - 20
A.G. -v- Sproule (10 January 1992) Jersey Unreported
Pagett -v- AG (1984) JJ 57 Cof A
A.G. -v- Bates (10 April 1985) Jersey Unreported
Ryall -v- AG (1 May 1995) Jersey Unreported Cof A
Thomas: Current Sentencing Practice: Section B6 - 1: R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr App. R (S) 142.
R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr App. R (s) 142