Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/164

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th July 2001

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Stuart Channing

[The Crown abandoned the prosecution on counts 1, 4, 9 and 10 and accepted a Not Guilty plea on count 7.]

Age:     33

Plea:    Guilty

Details of Offence:

Defendant arrested in September 1999 on suspicion of having committed an offence for which he was not prosecuted.  Upon detention at Police Headquarters he was searched and found to be in possession of a bag containing 887mg cannabis resin (count 2) and 1.76g (13% by weight) of amphetamine sulphate (count 3) which he stated was for personal use.  Crown accepted this.  He was also found in possession of an extendable ASP baton (count 5) and a black knuckle-duster (count 6) which he claimed he carried for personal protection.  The charge of obtaining money by false pretences resulted from an agreement between Defendant and the victim of the fraud to carry out mechanical work on a motor-tricycle.  £1,100 was paid to the Defendant in pursuance of the agreement, but no work was ever carried out.  

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, the pleas to Counts 2, 3, 5 and 6 having been entered at an early stage.  The guilty plea to Count 8 had been entered at a very late stage, but some credit could still be allowed for it as the cost of a trial had been avoided.  Defendant had answered his bail.  Long gap in his criminal record between 1992 and the present date.   He had spent the equivalent of a 13 month sentence in custody on remand for this and other offences, which in the event were not prosecuted.  Considerable delay in the final disposal of the case.  Whilst the fraud was callous and committed over a lengthy period, it was not a sophisticated one, nor was it at the higher end of the scale in terms of the sum of money involved.  History of psychological problems.  A GP's report showed that he had suffered psychological and physical problems as a result of an extended period of over one year spent on remand and the delays in dealing with the case.  Defendant expressed remorse and his good behaviour in recent times was emphasised.  Defendant expressed willingness to pay any compensation order imposed.  

Previous Convictions:

Long record, mostly motoring and dishonesty, from his teens until 1992.  The 1992 offence was the most serious and involved attempted larceny with violence.  For that he had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment.  Defendant had, however, kept out of trouble ever since.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted; no compensation order made.

Crowns conclusions were right and, in particular, reflected the seriousness with which the law regarded fraud.  However, the Court was pleased that the defendant had expressed remorse.  Concern was expressed about the delay in bringing the case to a conclusion.  No compensation order would be made, there being a risk to the Defendant's liberty if he did not, or could not comply with it.  It was now time to draw the matter to a close.  Defendant had repaid his debt to society and, having already served the equivalent of mare than twelve months' imprisonment on remand, was free to go.

A.J. Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        We are going to grant the conclusions, in part, and we are going to impose the sentence of imprisonment for which the Crown Advocate has moved, that is to say you will be sentenced on count 2 to 1 week's imprisonment, on count 3 to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, on count 5; 2 months' imprisonment, on count 6; 2 months' imprisonment, on count 8; 12 months' imprisonment.  All those sentences to be concurrent making a total of 12 months' imprisonment. 

2.        We are concerned at the length of time which it has taken to bring this case to a conclusion and we do not have sufficient information at our disposal to understand, completely, why that delay has taken place, although there may very well be good reasons for at least part of the delay.  But we do not wish, as a result of that, to add to the prison terms to which you will be liable.  You have already served the equivalent of a 12 month term on remand and so the result of the prison sentences imposed this morning is that you will be free to leave the court. 

3.        You did behave badly, so far as the motor tricycle was concerned and we are glad that you have acknowledged your obligation to repay the owner the money which you defrauded from him, but we are not going to order you, by way of a compensation order, to pay that money.  You will, obviously, if you fail to pay the money, be liable to be pursued by the owner in the civil courts but we are not going to impose a compensation order with the risk that you might be brought back before this court and liable to a further term of imprisonment.  The reason for that is, as we have said, we think it is time this matter was drawn to a close and you will leave this Court having served your penalty to society. 

No Authorities