Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/68

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th April, 2000.

 

Before:    M.C .St.J Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Rumfitt and Le Brocq.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Annie Kathleen Murphy

 

1 count of larceny as a servant (count1);

 

1 count of  falsification of accounts (count 2)

 

Age:   59.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Between 1^st January, 1998, and 7^th January, 1999, Murphy stole approximately £95,921.66 from her employer.  She was accounts supervisor and had worked for the company for approximately 23 years.  There were inadequate financial controls.  The monies were spent in supporting her and her family in a lifestyle which she could not otherwise have afforded.  Murphy stole cash, and sought to conceal those crimes by falsifying bank statements for the business reserve account.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The age of the accused and her extensive family relationships as mother, grandmother and great grandmother; the length of time since the date of charge (one year), not due to her lack of co-operation; her ready admission of the facts from the outset and her guilty plea; her lack of funds deriving from the thefts, including the fact that life policies with surrender values had been enjoined by the employer; her lack of any previous convictions and real remorse, coupled with the fact that these offences were committed shortly after the death of her husband.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                             2½ years' imprisonment;

                      Count 2:   2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:   2 years' imprisonment;

Count 2:   2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Court's policy was to impose custodial sentences save in exceptional circumstances.  None were present in this case.  Small reduction in conclusions taking account of age of accused.

 

 

                                                         The Attorney General.

                                             Advocate W. Grace for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.      The defendant was the accounts supervisor at Russell Meats Limited.  She had sole responsibility for receiving the cash and cheques from customers and banking these funds and for keeping the books of account.  The level of trust placed in her was high.

 

2.      Between 1^st January, 1988, and 7^th January, 1999, the defendant stole over £95,000 from her employer and falsified bank statements and computer records in order to cover up her crime.

 

3.      The Court's policy on breaches of trust is clear.  Save in exceptional circumstances a custodial sentence must be imposed.

 

4.      Advocate Grace has argued strongly that there are exceptional circumstances in this case and we have considered that most carefully.  He relies on the following matters: the guilty plea; the very high level of co-operation with the company and the police once the matter was discovered; the accused's hitherto good character; the delay in bringing this matter in that it has been hanging over the accused since January of last year, although we have to say that in cases of this sort delay is inevitable because the prosecution have to sift through documents, some of which are often very difficult to find because of the actions of an accused in such circumstances.

 

5.      Mr. Grace says further that the money was not used on high living, it was used simply to support the family.  He has referred to the accused's personal history and we have read the background report in the case.

 

6.      He furthermore relies heavily upon the accused's age and that is clearly a strong mitigating factor.

 

7.      Finally he refers to the level of trust, not to place blame on the company, but to emphasise that there was very little if any supervision of the accused's activities.  As has been said in other cases this is if anything an aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating factor but the Court does note it and does express some surprise at the lack of supervision from accountants or otherwise.

 

8.      Taking all these matters into account, are they exceptional?  The Court has considered this carefully but these factors are present in so many of these cases and the Court has come to the conclusion that they are not exceptional circumstances.  However, in the light of the mitigation, particularly the accused's age, we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly and we therefore impose a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment concurrent on each count.

 

 

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Morris (3^rd June, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Picot (29^th May, 1990) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Sproule (10^th January, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

 

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

 

Bates -v- AG (10^th April, 1985) Jersey Unreported. CofA.

 

Higgs (1986) 8 Cr.App.R.(S) 440.

 

AG -v- Blake (18^th August, 1995) Jersey Unreported.