Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/247A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th December, 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Amanda Dawn Sangster (formerly du Four);

Jayne Marie Sangster

 

Amanda Dawn Sangster (formerly Du Four)

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 1:  Cannabis resin.
1 count of:	Demanding money with menaces (Count 2).

 

 

Age:     32        

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

The defendants demanded £5, 000 in cash from Mr. X with a threat that if he failed to pay, they would report him to the police for sexually abusing two youths aged 17 and 15.  One of the youths, "G" was temporarily staying at the Sangster household and said that Mr. X had given him money to buy drugs in return for which "G" had granted him sexual favours.  He then caused a considerable amount of damage to items in the household and was asked to leave.  The defendants then contacted Mr. X by telephone demanding money in return for silence.  He initially paid £1,000 in cash and said he would have to get a bank loan to pay the balance.  Instead, he went to the police.  Following a covert operation, Jayne Sangster was arrested holding £4,000 in cash which had been handed to her by Mr. X at a pre-arranged rendezvous.  Jayne Sangster had involved her son, then aged 14, in the demands and he was in the car when the money was handed over.  Following the arrest of the Sangsters, a small amount of cannabis was found at their home and Jayne Sangster admitted supplying it to Amanda, saying she had purchased it for £160 out of the initial £1,000 paid by Mr. X.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendants had been in a lesbian relationship for approximately five years and were effectively parents to Jayne's four children aged 8 to 16.  Both received invalidity benefit and had financial and health problems.  They claimed the initial demand of £1,000 was to compensate for the damage caused by "G" but admitted they went on to attempt to extract a further £4,000.  They eventually admitted equal culpability

 

Previous Convictions:

2 previous convictions, one of which was a joint conviction with Jayne Sangster.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	£200 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	£200 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Jayne Marie Sangster.

 

1 counts of:	Demanding money with menaces ( count 3):
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 4: Cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     35        

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

See Amanda Dawn Sangster.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See Amanda Dawn Sangster

 

Previous Convictions:

Broke and entered a property stealing goods to the value of £400; Receiving an envelope containing £850 cash stolen at the same time. Two previous motoring offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	£500 fine or 1 month imprisonment in default of payment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:	18 months imprisonment concurrent
Count 4:	£500 fine or 1 month imprisonment in default of payment.

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.A. Pearmain for A.D. Sangster (formerly Du Four)

Advocate R. Juste for J.M. Sangster.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Blackmail is a very serious offence which is generally regarded by the public with contempt.  It is the exploitation of weakness for commercial gain.  In this case the offence was aggravated by the fact that the allegation of sexual abuse of a young person was one which ought to have led the accused to report the matter without hesitation to the police, but instead they chose to use the information to try to extract money from Mr. X.  Furthermore, they involved one of Jayne Sangster's minor children on more than one occasion in participating in the crime.

2.        We have taken account of all the matters placed before us in mitigation. To the credit of both accused they have pleaded guilty to the indictment and they have frankly acknowledged that what they did was very wrong.

3.        We think that the conclusions are probably correct, but we have nonetheless asked ourselves whether the sentence can be lower in order to reduce the inevitable impact on the small children of Jayne Sangster.   The sentence of the Court is as follows:  Amanda Sangster on Count 1 you will be fined the sum of £200 or two weeks' imprisonment.  On Count 2 you will be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, concurrent.  Jayne Sangster, on Count 3 you will be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, and on Count 4 you will be fined £500 or 1 months' imprisonment concurrent, and we order the destruction and forfeiture of the drugs. 

 

Authorities

R -v- Christie (1990) 12 Cr. App. R (S) 540

R -v- Smith (1993) 14 Cr. App. R (S) 786

R -v- Hollinworth & Yates (1994) 15 Cr.App.R (S) 258

R -v- Whitehead (1996) 1 Cr. App.R (S)111

.