Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/68

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

23^rd March, 2001

 

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

                                          Jurats de Veulle and Allo.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Melanie Rose Adamson

 

 

1 count of:   larceny.

 

Age:    23.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Adamson was employed as a sales and purchasing ledger assistant, and it was her job to assist the company accountant.  Her responsibilities included sending statements to account customers and crediting their accounts from receipt of funds.  She was also accountable for the petty cash held by the company at its premises, and the daily banking of monies from the various departments within the company.  Prior to commencing her employment, she was addicted to dihydrocodeine, a painkilling drug.  The accused and her live-in boyfriend were then introduced to heroin and they both became addicts, spending up to £100 per day on their addiction.  The accused was the main financial provider and, because of the level of their addiction, she soon got into financial difficulties.  She took out a substantial loan to clear the debts, but she soon fell behind with the repayments of the loan.  Approximately 6 to 8 months after the commencement of employment she began stealing funds from her employer.  She took money from the company's petty cash bank account and also out of the petty cash tin.  She further stole money which had been paid by customers in settlement, either in whole or in part, of their liabilities to the company.  She went on to intercept statements which she was meant to send to customers, so as to avoid detection.  The accused stated that it was her intention to repay the money and that she had in fact made some small repayments, although she did not have any idea as to the total amount she had taken.  Given that she was spending up to £3,000 on her joint drug addiction with her boyfriend, and only had an income of approximately £1,500 per month, it was conceded that she had no realistic opportunity or ability to repay the stolen money.  It was the Crown's contention, that in keeping with the authorities, such a blatant offence of breach of trust should be dealt with by way of a custodial sentence, particularly as there were not any exceptional circumstances to justify a non-custodial sentence.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Adamson was described as having had a happy and stable childhood and was a bright and likeable young lady before she became involved with drugtaking.  She then spiralled out of control, moving from painkillers on to heroin, with the inevitable adverse financial consequences.  She was relieved when she was apprehended as, although she had always intended repaying the monies, she was surprised when advised of the total amount of monies taken, and accepted that she could not have repaid it.  The accused was due outstanding wages, which could go some way to reduce her liability.  She had been attending the alcohol and drug service and was making positive progress to beating her addiction.  She was currently on a methadone programme which has resulted in a reduction of her drug intake.  She was a first offender and was of previous good character; character references were provided to the Court.   The defence acknowledged that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case, but rather unfortunate circumstances.  The offences had been hanging over her heard for approximately six months before the case came to Court.  She had been fully co-operative with the police, was genuinely remorseful, and had the support of her family.  She was described as a young lady who had lost her way; the offences were committed purely as a result of her addiction.  She had now turned the corner, she was getting her life back on track, and it would be unfortunate if those efforts were undermined by a custodial sentence.  Defence counsel recommended a non-custodial sentence, if only in the exercise of the Court's prerogative of mercy.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

One for possession of heroin.

 

Conclusions:

 

9 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

1 year Probation Order, with conditions of treatment by Alcohol and Drugs Service, as directed, and random urine testing; 150 hours community service.

 

This was a sad story of degradation brought about by the accused's addiction to heroin.  Until recently she had been a respectable young lady holding down responsible jobs, but because of her addiction she had stolen £7,682 from her employer.  The policy of the Court in cases of this nature was that they should be dealt with by way of custodial sentences unless there were very exceptional circumstances.  The Court felt there could be no criticism of the Crown in its conclusions, or for the length of sentence moved for by the Crown.  However, defence counsel had requested the Court to exercise its prerogative of mercy because of the guilty plea; co-operation; the accused's comparative youth; and because, in reality, she was a first offender.  She also had strong family support and had only offended because of her addiction to heroin.  The Court noted her genuine remorse which she had set out in a letter which was handed to the Court.  In September, 2000, she had appeared before the Magistrate's Court in relation to an offence of being in possession of heroin.  The Court had seen the report and noted that Adamson had made great strides in combating her addiction to heroin and that she was reducing her methadone doses.  The Court concluded that they thought it would be wrong, given the unusual circumstances of the case, to put Adamson in prison, when she had made such good progress.  However, she was warned that if she came back before either the Royal Court or the Magistrate's Court, there would be only one outcome which would be that she would go to prison.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.C. Sowden for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This is a very sad story of the degradation which is brought about by heroin addiction.  Until fairly recently, Miss Adamson was a responsible young woman holding down good jobs but she then became addicted to heroin and, to fund her habit, she stole a total of £7,682 from her employer over a period of about one year.

 

2.            It is the clear policy of this Court that cases of breach of trust of this nature are dealt with by way of a prison sentence and we find nothing to criticise in the conclusions moved for by the Crown and the length of sentence which they have recommended.

 

3.            But Miss Sowden has asked us as an act of mercy to impose a non-custodial sentence.  She has referred to the defendant's guilty plea; her co-operation with the investigation; her comparative youth; the fact that in reality she is a first offender, as her only other conviction took place after these offences; the fact that the whole incident was down to her dependency on heroin; the strong family support which she has and which we have seen in Court today; and, significantly, her remorse because we have a letter from Miss Adamson before us, which we have read, in which she says at the end "Again, my sincere apologies to all concerned including the police who were very sympathetic towards me and I can assure you that I will never appear before you again."

 

4.            Most significant is the fact that in September, 2000, the defendant appeared before the Magistrate's Court for an offence of possession of heroin which came about at the same time as the investigation started into these offences.  The Magistrate's Court bound her over on condition that she attend the Alcohol and Drug Service.

 

5.            Miss Adamson, we have seen the reports that have been prepared by that service and by the Probation Service and it is quite clear that you have made great strides.  The Court is pleased to note that you are making real efforts to put your heroin addiction behind you and that you are now reducing your dependency on methadone.  Given that the Magistrate's Court sentence was imposed whilst the investigation of these offences was going on and given the fact that you have made such determined efforts to put your addiction behind you, we think it would wrong, in these unusual circumstances, to put you in prison now when you have made such good progress.  So, we do feel able to deal with it by way of a non-custodial sentence.

 

6.            The sentence is as follows: you will be placed on a supervised Probation Order for one year.  It will be a condition of that order that you attend treatment, as directed by the Alcohol and Drugs Service, and that, no doubt, will include random urine testing, to ensure that you are drug-free.  In addition, we think that you must be punished for what has taken place and we order that you carry out 150 hours' community service within that 12 month period.  We must warn you that if you come before this Court or the Magistrate's Court again, for any offence - and that includes possession of heroin - you will then be brought back here because you will be in breach of the Probation Order, and if you are brought back here there will be only one outcome - you will go to prison.  You must do what the Probation Officer says; you must carry out the community service; and, most importantly, you must keep drug-free.  If you do those three things then you will be set fair for the future and we will not see you in this Court again.

 

Authorities

 

 

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

A.G. -v- Harris (27^th March, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Kimber (8^th May, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Warn (26^th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Magrico (27^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported.