ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18 December 1998
Sir Peter Crill, KBE Commissioner and
Jurats Myles and Tibbo
AG
-v-
John Currie Johnson
7 counts of fraud (counts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
Age:32
Plea:Guilty
Details of Offence:
Johnson claimed sickness benefit and subsequently incapacity benefit continuously from August, 1989, to March, 1998 (8 years 7 months). For intermittent periods totalling 5 years he was either working under a false name in which he had registered with the Social Security Department or obtaining benefit in the United Kingdom. He thus fraudulently obtained £35,243.43. Fraud deliberate, involving double registration under different names, and protracted. Defendant not helpful when finally detected.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea. Though cumulative amounts substantial, small amount weekly. Break of some years in the fraud. Claim not false from outset. Primary concern family. Money not spent on luxuries. No previous imprisonment. Remorse. Family also suffering. Good army service Requires treatment for injured leg.
Previous Convictions: None relevant
Conclusions:
Count 1:3 years imprisonment
Count 2:3 years imprisonment
Count 3:3 years imprisonment
Count 4:3 years imprisonment
Count 5:3 years imprisonment
Count 6:3 years imprisonment
Count 7:3 years imprisonment
All concurrent
Sentence and Observations of the Court:
Conclusions granted. Distinguished Livingstone Stewart, agreeing with prosecution that Royal Court sentences have deterrent effect. Wrongdoing persistent and deliberate. Deterrent sentence required.
The Solicitor General
Advocate J C Gollop for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:The Court wishes to say that in cases of this nature it wholly approves of the words in Livingstone Stewart and Others (1987) 9 Cr.App.R.(S.) 135 at 138 which are as follows:
"These offences involve the dishonest abstraction of honest taxpayers’ money, and are not to be treated lightly. They are easy to commit and difficult and expensive to track down".
The wrongdoing in your case, Johnson, was persistent and deliberate. The reasons for it are shown in the background report, which we have looked at very carefully, and we are satisfied that this is a case which requires a deterrent sentence. We agree with the Solicitor General that the effect of a deterrent sentence in this Court is different from that perceived in England in respect of a sentence of similar length in the Crown Courts there and therefore we are prepared to distinguish it here on that basis.
We have looked at all the factors set out at p.139 of the Livingstone Stewart judgment and have listened to what your counsel has set out very clearly in your favour but we remain of the opinion that a deterrent sentence is needed and that should be a custodial sentence and accordingly you are sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, making a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.
Authorities
Livingstone Stewart and Others (1987) 9 Cr.App.R(S.) 135
AG -v- Harris (27 March 1997) Jersey Unreported
Perry (1989) 11 Cr.App.R(S.) 58
AG -v- Blake (18 August 1995) Jersey Unreported
Whelan: ‘Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey’: pp.54 et seq.