Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/184

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Peter Colin Channing

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at a Criminal Assize on 11^th July, 2001 on:

 

12 counts of:	obtaining property by false pretences (counts 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14);
1 count of:	attempting to obtain property by false pretences (count 15).

 

[On the direction of the Judge in the Assize trial, the Jury returned verdicts of not guilty on counts 3 and 10].

 

           

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused was convicted,  following an Assize trial,  of thirteen counts of obtaining property by false pretences and one count of attempting to obtain property by false pretences.  The accused was a director of Holiday Autos, a local hire car company.  In the knowledge that the financial position of the company was becoming worse, the accused participated in a scheme whereby the hire car fleet was sold to innocent purchasers, without informing them that the cars actually belonged to various finance houses.  Advertisements were placed in the Jersey Evening Post which indicated that the cars belonged to Holiday Autos, even though the accused knew this not to be the case.  He was charged only with those offences where he had dealt directly with members of the public.  Payment by cheque had been received in the name of Holiday Autos and the accused had falsely pretended that the cars belonged to Holiday Autos in circumstances where he knew that they did not.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The defence submitted that the accused became aware of the financial difficulties of the business as soon as Holiday Autos had been acquired.  This was described as a classic example of  "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" .  If the company had not been in financial difficulties there would have been no need to perpetrate the fraud.  The accused had a sense of grievance because another director of Holiday Autos, who was probably the driving force behind the frauds,  had fled the jurisdiction and not been tried, leaving the accused to stand alone and face the consequences.  The accused generally blamed the absent director for orchestrating the whole arrangement.  Through Counsel the accused expressed deep remorse for his actions.  He expressed the wish that he had the money to repay the individuals defrauded.  He now understood the distress inflicted on his victims.  Counsel referred to the fact that the accused's mother had taken out a loan charge against her own property to assist with his business activities.  Unless the accused was released and able to earn a living, he would not be able to service the loan taken out by his mother, with the consequences that the mother ran the risk of loosing her home.  This was urged upon the Court as mitigation.  There were delays in bringing the prosecution.  Community Service would provide him with an opportunity to contribute to society in a meaningful way.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Several minor convictions, all a long time ago and nothing relevant.

 

 

Conclusions:

Counts:    1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12: 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count.

Counts:    13, 14, 15: 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count, and concurrent with

               other sentences.

TOTAL:   15 months' imprisonment; disqualification from being a company director for 5 years.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Counts:    1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12: 21 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count.

Counts:    13, 14, 15: 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count, and concurrent with

               other sentences.

TOTAL:   21 months' imprisonment; disqualification from being a company director for 5 years.

Great hardship caused to victims of these frauds and also loss caused to hire purchase company.  The accused denied his guilt.  Although a powerful case for mitigation had been made out by Counsel for the defence, a custodial sentence was inevitable.  The Court took the view that the Crown had not adequately taken into account the not guilty plea at trial.  The sentence moved for by the Crown would have been appropriate had the accused pleaded guilty to the offences.

 

 

M. St.J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. Benest for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Over a period of approximately six months this defendant sold 13 cars which did not belong to Holiday Autos, of which he was a director, but belonged to various hire purchase companies which had leased the cars to Holiday Autos.

2.        The defendant has caused great hardship to many of the individuals to whom the cars were sold because when the fraud was discovered they had to pay further sums to the hire purchase companies in order just to keep the cars which they thought they had already paid for.  Some of them could ill afford this and, indeed, one of the victims had to give the car back which meant that all his repayments were lost.  He has also caused loss to the hire purchase companies in respect of amounts which they were unable to recover.  Furthermore, the defendant denied his guilt in this matter and therefore there is no mitigation available for a guilty plea. 

3.        Miss Benest has put forward a powerful case in mitigation and we wish to thank her for what she has said and the manner in which she has said it.  She refers to the fact that there was no personal benefit, the proceeds simply went into the business which then went bankrupt.  She has referred to the defendant's good character in the sense that he had very minor previous convictions many years ago and we have seen the references which show what the defendant is capable of and in particular the charitable activities he has undertaken.  She has pointed out that the real villain, she would say, is Mr. Dwyer who has not yet been brought before the Court.  He was the person with the financial skills in this business.  She has also referred to the hardship which would be caused to the defendant's mother if we were to impose a prison sentence because it is likely she may lose her home.  She has also referred to the delay but we have to say that the defendant brought this substantially upon himself because he made no comment at the original interviews with the result that the investigators had to look into the complexities of this business without assistance.  We accept that he may have been advised to do that by Mr. Dwyer but he has to take the responsibility for his own actions.  Finally, Miss Benest has urged that a more constructive course to that proposed by the Crown would be a community service order; it would enable the defendant to remain at liberty and earn money to pay into his 'désastre'.

4.        We have carefully considered all that Miss Benest has urged but we have concluded that the offending in this case was too serious to be dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence.  We have gone on to consider the length of the sentence.  The Crown's conclusion is for a total sentence of 15 months: this follows a trial.  Assuming the normal discount for a guilty plea this is equivalent to 10 months following such a plea.  Having regard to other cases and to the seriousness of the offending, we think that that is too low.  The sentence which the Crown moved for would, we believe, have been appropriate on a guilty plea. 

5.        Would you stand up, please, Channing.  In the circumstances the sentence we pass is as follows:  On counts 1, 2, 4-9 inclusive, 11 and 12, the sentence is one of 21 months' imprisonment; on counts 13-15 inclusive: 18 months' imprisonment; all of these sentences to be concurrent making a total of 21 months and we further order that you be disqualified from being a director under Article 78 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (as amended) for five years.

 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Allen, Cassiano and de Vivieros (16^th February, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

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

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

AG-v-Wells (3^rd April, 1998) Jersey Unreported: [1998/72].

AG-v-Austin (12^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported: [1999/48].

AG-v-Hamilton, Moody and Streets (3^rd June, 1999) Jersey Unreported: [1999/97].

AG-v-Renouf (30^th May, 2001) Jersey Unreported: [2001/125].

Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (as amended): Article 78.