Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/175

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6th August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Patrick Anthony Buckley;

Jason Roger Hébert;

Robert Kirkland;

Ian George White.

 

Details of Offence:       (all four Defendants):

 

Count 1:  (Buckley)  over a period of three years Buckley, who was employed as a sales assistant at BG Romeril & Co Ltd, stole goods having an approximate cost value to Romerils of £18,800.  Approximately £16,000 of this amount represented 66 sales transactions to 58 members of the public whom Buckley informed would get a better price if they booked the goods through his account because he was able to get a staff discount.  Buckley received just over £20,000 from his private customers, most of whom paid by way of a cheque.  Buckley did not enter any of these transactions through Romeril's accounts.  The estimated cost value of the goods supplied amounted to £16,129.  Buckley volunteered that a toaster, kettle, microwave and 'Dimplex' oil filled radiator at his home was property that he had stolen from Romeril's stock (at a cost to Romerils of £211).  Buckley admitted supplying bathroom equipment to White (see count 4) at a cost to Romerils of £2,456.95.

 

Count 2:  (Buckley/Hébert)  over a 12 month period Buckley supplied shower units and other bathroom equipment to Hébert, a self-employed plumber.  Approximately 20 transactions were involved at a total cost price to Romerils of £3,150.

 

Count 3:  (Kirkland/Hébert)  Kirkland, who was also a sales assistant employed in the plumbing and heating section at BG Romeril & Co, over a 12 month period supplied Hébert with plumbing and heating equipment at an estimated cost to Romerils of £4,900.  Significantly more transactions involved than the 20 or so which took place in relation to count 2 charges as the unit value of goods supplied tended to be much lower than the unit cost of goods supplied in relation to count 2.  Hébert said he paid between £3,000 and £4,000 in cash to Kirkland during this period.  Kirkland said the figure did not exceed £1,500.

 

Count 4:  (White)  White received shower and bathroom equipment at cost value of £2,456.95 from Buckley knowing same to have been stolen.  In assessing the gravity of the offences of the breach of trust offences (Buckley and Kirkland) the Crown referred to the factors set out in Court of Appeal case of Barrick.  (1)  Degree of trust placed in Buckley and Kirkland:  Both were entrusted to enter all sales transactions without supervision in the records of Romerils.  A greater degree of trust was reposed in Buckley who had the authority to negotiate discounts of up to 10% and to visit members of the public on site to advise in relation to technical and other matters.  (2)  Period of offending:  Buckley's offending took place over a three year period (count 1) and a 1 year period (count 2) involving a total of £21,950.  Kirkland's offending took place over a 1 year period and involved the sum of £4,900.  (3)  Use to which monies were put:  Buckley used the money initially to fund his habit of clubbing and generally to improve his lifestyle possibly including the purchase of gadgets.  Kirkland denied that he used the money on gambling (his level of gambling remained constant) and said that the money was spent on his two daughters (on whom he doted) and to provide maintenance for his ex-wife.  (4)  Effect on victim:  direct financial losses suffered by Romerils (a body corporate as opposed to an individual) and losses from down-turn in trade following adverse publicity from criminal investigations.  Buckley (through family members) had paid £5,000 to Romerils.  Buckley and Kirkland offered to make restitution.  (5)  Impact of events on the public and public confidence:  not applicable.  (6)  Effect on fellow employees:  shadow of suspicion cast on fellow employees during course of police and management investigations.  Morale was at rock bottom.  Small financial loss through non-payment of performance related commission determined by monthly sales recorded in the accounts.  Under the counter sales not recorded.  An employee was questioned but later released without charge.  (7)  Effect on offender:  Buckley and Kirkland both lost their jobs.  Buckley has managed to find employment in a similar job elsewhere.  Kirkland (at age 54) found employment as a general labourer.  Further details set out in SER.  (8)  Offenders' own history:  set out in SER.  (9)  Mitigation:  see below.

 

Details of Mitigation:    (all four Defendants):

 

Buckley:   Guilty plea.  Immediate admissions to police.  Entirely co-operative and actively sought to assist the police.  He wrote his own indictment in relation to stolen goods at his home address and the supply of bathroom equipment to White (two of the three elements of count 1 or approximately a ninth of the sum referred to in the particulars of count 1).  Although the prosecution evidence in relation to the private sales to members of the public was compelling, Buckley's admissions when he voluntarily attended Police Headquarters on 22^nd January 2001 and on subsequent occasions following the press release on 18^th January 2001 (requesting assistance of the public who had had dealings with Buckley or Kirkland) saved the police time on their investigations and meant that police did not have to investigate this particular aspect of the matter any further.  It was Buckley's admission in relation to his dealings with White which resulted in White being questioned and then charged for having received stolen goods.  Had given details to police of names of others who might be involved in similar operations, although no criminal prosecutions resulted from this information.  Remorse.  Repaid £5,000 (with the assistance of family members) and undertaking to repay Romerils.  See AG-v-Hill (2000) JLR N-62.  Good character.

 

Hébert:  Plea of guilty.  Immediate admissions.  Extensive assistance given to the police.  Wrote his own indictment (count 2).  It was Hébert's admission in relation to his dealings with Buckley that led to Buckley being questioned.  Hébert informed police that whilst fitting White's bathroom, White had told him that he knew goods that White had received from Buckley were "dodgy" (i.e. stolen).  Hébert provided police with names of individuals who might be involved in similar operations, although no criminal proceedings resulted from this information.  Remorse.  On 2^nd August 2001, Hébert had paid £3,000 to Romerils being a compensation order to be sought by the Crown on 6^th August 2001 and offered to pay any further sums due and which Romerils might wish to pursue on a civil basis.  Enabled police to recover all the property which could be recovered (a relatively significant proportion of the stolen goods in relation to count 3, but a relatively insignificant portion of goods in relation to count 2).

 

Kirkland:  Plea of guilty.  Eventual admissions at conclusion of second set of question and answer interviews.  No previous convictions.  Good character.  Offer to repay.  Remorse.

 

White:  Plea of guilty.  Admissions made eventually during course of question and answer interview.  Single incident.  Although previous convictions, none for offences of dishonesty.  Remorse.  Offer to repay.

 

Previous Convictions:  (all four Defendants)

 

Buckley:  None.

Hébert:  Two previous convictions for offences of dishonesty: 5^th October, 1989, sentenced to one year's probation for three counts of having received, hidden, or withheld stolen property knowing it to be stolen.  In July, 1992, Hébert was placed on probation on condition that he complete 90 hours' community service in relation to larceny of cassette tapes valued at £150 from an unattended motor vehicle.

Kirkland:  None.

White:  Motor and minor firearms offences but otherwise no relevant previous offences of dishonesty.

 

Patrick Anthony Buckley

 

1 count of:	larceny as a servant (count 1);
1 count of:	conspiracy to defraud (count 2).

 

 

Age:     33.                   

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	21 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	21 months' imprisonment.

 

Compensation order in favour of BG Romeril & Co Ltd of £12,500 to be paid, on release, at rate of £300 per month in first year; £320 per month in second year, as necessary, or 12 months' imprisonment in default of payment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment.

 

Compensation order as per conclusions.

 

Jason Robert Hébert

 

2 counts of:

conspiracy to defraud (counts 2 and 3).

 

Age:     29.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment;
Count 3:	15 months' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Counts 2 and 3:   210 hours' community service (equivalent of 15 months' imprisonment).

 

Robert Kirkland

 

1 count of:

conspiracy to defraud (count 3).

 

Age:     54.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

Compensation order in favour of BG Romeril & Co Ltd of £1,500 to be paid, on release, at rate of £300 per month or 3 months' imprisonment in default.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:

9 months' imprisonment.

 

Compensation order:  as per conclusions.

 

Ian George White

 

1 count of:

receiving stolen property (count 4).

 

Age:     31.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Conclusions:

 

120 hours' community service.

Compensation order in favour of BG Romeril & Co Ltd of £2,456.95, to be paid at the rate of £300 per month, or 5 months' imprisonment in default.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

120 hours' community service (equivalent of 6 months' imprisonment).

Compensation order:  as per conclusions, except it is to be paid at rate of £500 per month or 5 months' imprisonment in default in default of payment.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for P.A. Buckley.

Advocate D.E. Le Cornu for J.R. Hébert.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for R. Kirkland.

Advocate Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for I.G. White.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.      In the case of AG-v-Picot (29^th May, 1990) Jersey Unreported; (1990) JLR N-19, the Superior Number laid down the general principle that persons convicted of offences of dishonesty involving a breach of trust should expect to receive custodial sentences other than in exceptional circumstances.  Custodial sentences are designed not only to punish those who deceive their employers and abuse their trust but also to deter other employees who might be tempted to be similarly dishonest. Despite the great punishment that offenders of this kind bring upon themselves, the Court must impose sufficiently substantial terms of imprisonment to mark publicly the gravity of the offence.

2.      Buckley, we have considered very carefully everything that has been said, most ably, by your counsel on your behalf.  It is a great pity that somebody of your ability and with all the right instincts so far as service to the community is concerned should have fallen victim to temptation in the way that you did.  We have taken account in particular of your guilty plea and your co-operation with the police which was considerable but we have also considered all the other matters urged by your counsel as well and we will reduce slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.

3.      The sentence of the Court is as follows: on count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on count 2, to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  We order you to pay compensation in the sum of £12,500 at the rate of £300 per month to commence two months after your release from prison; at £320 per month during the second year as necessary, or, in default of payment of the compensation, 12 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

4.      Kirkland, you, too, have spoiled a good record by falling into temptation after a lifetime of keeping on the straight and narrow.  For the reasons given in relation to Buckley the Court must impose a custodial sentence.  We have noted, however, the shorter period of offending in your case; the lower amount of money involved; and the lesser degree of responsibility which you had in the firm of BG Romeril & Co Ltd.  Taking all those factors into account, together with the other mitigating factors and in particular your guilty plea, on count 3, you are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment; we order you to pay compensation in the sum of £1,500 to be paid at the rate of £300 per month to commence two months after your release from prison; or 3 months' imprisonment consecutive in default of payment of the compensation.

5.      Hébert, the Court has had considerable difficulty in your case in that in many ways you, too, deserve to go to prison.  Your counsel has, however, correctly urged upon us that you were not an employee of B G Romeril & Co and the element of breach of trust does not, therefore, apply in your case.  We have also taken into account the many positive things about your background which are contained in the reports and we have decided, with hesitation and on balance, that a custodial penalty can be avoided in your case.  We order you to perform 210 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 15 months' imprisonment.

6.      White, we have considered carefully the submissions of your counsel but we are not persuaded to impose a financial penalty.  You have behaved dishonestly and we think that a custodial penalty would not be inappropriate, although this is a case where a non-custodial alternative can be applied.  We therefore grant the conclusions and we order you to perform 120 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 6 months' imprisonment.  We also order you to pay compensation to BG Romeril & Co in the sum of £2,456.95, to be paid at the rate of £500 per month and in default of payment you will serve 5 months' imprisonment.

 

Authorities

AG-v-Picot (29^th May, 1990) Jersey Unreported; (1990) JLR N-19.

AG-v-Russell (14^th January, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Allen & Ors (16^th February, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Morrow (25^th April, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Connor (31^st October, 1988) Jersey Unreported.

Lloyd-v-AG (23^rd September, 1986) Jersey Unreported CofA.

AG-v-Thomas (1^st August, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Parkinson (29^th May, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

Barrick (1985) Crim.App.R. 142.

AG-v-Lloyd (3^rd July, 1986) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Armitage & Ors (1^st May, 1992) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Munks (8^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Hill (2000) JLR N-62.

.