Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/50 - Johnson v AG [1999] UR 50 (15 March 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/50.html
Cite as: [1999] UR 50
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
Royal Court (Superior Number)
exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it
by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961
15 March 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache Kt Bailiff,
and Jurats Le Ruez, Herbert,
Potter, Quérée, and Le Breton
John Currie Johnson
-v-
AG
Appeal against a total sentence of 3 years imprisonment passed on 18 December 1998, by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, [1998.254] following a guilty plea to:
7 counts of fraud (counts 1-7, inclusive), on each of which counts a concurrent sentence of 3 years imprisonment was passed;
Leave to appeal was granted by the Deputy Bailiff on 22 January 1999.
Advocate W Grace for the Appellant
The Solicitor General
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: This is an appeal by leave of the Deputy Bailiff by John Currie Johnson against a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by the Inferior Number on 18 December 1998, on seven counts of fraud. The appellant dishonestly obtained over £35,000 in sickness benefit and subsequently in incapacity benefit during two periods totalling five years between 1990 and 1998.
The first period between 1990 and 1991 involved a claim for benefit whilst he was in fact employed by Ann Street Brewery Co Ltd. The second period between 1994 and 1998 involved claims for Jersey benefit while he was also claiming different benefits from the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom.
When first tackled about these claims the appellant denied having had any dealings with the United Kingdom benefits office and having received any benefit from the United Kingdom. He did, however, plead guilty on the first available opportunity to the offences set out in the indictment.
The ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It was submitted that the Inferior Number did not take fully into account the mitigating factors which are relevant to this case. Counsel for the appellant, who made every submission which he properly could, referred to the brevity of the Courts judgment, but we have had the advantage of reading the Judge’s report from which it is clear that careful consideration was given to all the mitigating factors both outlined by counsel and indeed set out in the background report.
Taken in the round this was a deliberate and protracted fraud involving the systematic plundering of the Social Security Fund to obtain a substantial sum of money. Such frauds must be punished by a lengthy prison term which may, in our judgment, deter others from committing similar offences.
We have given careful consideration to all the points raised by counsel but in our judgment all the mitigating factors were taken fully into account by the Inferior Number. We cannot reach the conclusion that the sentence of three years imprisonment was manifestly excessive and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
Authorities
Livingstone Stewart & Ors. (1987) 9 Cr.App.R(S) 135
AG -v- Blake (18 August 1995) Jersey Unreported; JLR N-24
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey:
Noter Up: May 1996-1997: pp21-23
Georgina Perry (1989) 11 Cr.App.R(S)
Clarkin -v- AG (1991) JLR 213 CofA