Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20 February 1998

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff,

and

Jurats de Veulle and Le Brocq

AG

-v-

Michael Andrew Gray

1 count of: attempting to obtain money by false pretences

Age: 32

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Gray deposited a quantity of personal belongings with White & Co. for storage. On collecting his belongings Gray realised some items were missing and he informed White & Co. who provided him with an insurance claim form to complete. The claim form stipulated that the Police had to be informed if there was a possibility that the goods had been stolen. Gray signed a Police statement and attached to that statement a list of missing items. He also completed the insurance claim form listing goods to the value of £9,923 which included various items of military equipment. In support of the claim Gray provided a copy letter addressed to himself purported to be written by a Major Skelton of the Parachute Regiment which letter implied that Gray had been in possession of equipment belonging to the Ministry of Defence which had been lost. The letter listed and valued that equipment.

On reviewing the claim the Insurers noted that the claim had been expanded to include items not previously mentioned by Gray. A loss adjuster was appointed who saw Gray who confirmed the content of the claim. The loss adjuster was suspicious and reported the matter to the Police. Gray then contacted the loss adjuster to inform him that the Ministry of Defence had now "written off" the military items. Gray then provided a letter purporting to be written by a J Edminson, Chief Clerk. Enquiries were then carried out and it was established that neither Major Skelton nor J Edminson existed. Gray then arranged a meeting with the loss adjuster and admitted to having lied on the claim form and to submitting the two forged letters. Gray then attended Police Headquarters and made a full and frank admission.

The true value of the claim was £3,500, and the inflated portion amounted to some £6,423.

Details of Mitigation:

Marriage breakdown. Debts incurred. Money from fraudulent claim was to have been used to repay part of debt of £27,000. Gray had settled into employment with a local Trust company, was planning to take Chartered Secretaries examinations, and decided to withdraw the claim because he enjoyed his work and realised that forged claim if it came to light would affect his promising career. The second forged letter was an exercise in damage limitation and made before the offence was discovered. Has lost his job as a result of the submission of a fraudulent insurance claim. Has lost £3,500 which is the value of the valid claim. Previous convictions for dishonesty were mainly committed when Gray was much younger and had malicious/vindictive/volatile personality traits which had not presented themselves for a period of ten years. Supportive SER. Splendid character references. Full admissions and co-operation.

Previous Convictions:

In 1985 ( when 19 years old) Breaking and entering shop and larceny ( fined £50) and attempted robbery ( 3 months YOC); in 1986 (when 20 years old ) sentenced to 120 hours Community Service for five counts of obtaining goods by false pretences; in 1991 fined by Glasgow Magistrates Court for theft by opening lockfast place. Motoring offences (DIC 1964 and 1995)

Conclusions:

1 year probation with 180 hours Community Service

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Conclusions granted.

Crown has been as understanding as it could have been in relation to this offence particularly in relation to the abuse of the papers connected with Grays service record (Forgery not charged). Efforts to withdraw from the fraud given particular weight.

P Matthews Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate SE Fitz for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: The Court is going to grant the conclusions, but I want to say to you that the Court thinks that the Crown Advocate has, indeed, been as understanding as he could have been in relation to this offence, particularly in relation to the abuse of the papers connected with your service record which - the Court is sure you now appreciate - was a grave abuse of something which ought to be a matter of pride so far as your past is concerned. The Court takes account however, of the references which have been placed before us and particularly of your efforts to withdraw from the fraud which you had decided to perpetrate on the insurance company.

You are therefore placed on probation for 1 year, subject to the usual conditions, and subject to an additional condition that you perform to the satisfaction of the Community Service Officer, 180 hours of community service. You may go.

No Authorities