Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/242

ROYAL COURT

(Superior Number)

(exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it

by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961)

16^th December, 2002

Robert Andrew Munro Wood

-v-

The Attorney General

Application of Robert Andrew Munro Wood for leave to appeal against a total sentence of 2 years' imprisonment passed on 16^th August, 2002, by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on a guilty plea, entered on 5th July, 2002, to:

The application for leave to appeal to be placed directly before the plenary Court without first being submitted to Single Judge for consideration and determination.

The Appellant on his own behalf;

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The appellant has presented an appeal which has been put to us this afternoon with great courtesy and some care.  Originally he had filed twelve separate grounds each of which had been answered in some detail by the Crown.  Now before us he withdraws those grounds and has entered what is called "a mitigation summary".  In that summary there is a letter from Dr Mirvis which he says was not presented at trial. 

2.        The Crown has no record of any letter having been received by or handed up to it from Dr. Mirvis.  We have, of course, read that letter with great care as we have read all the correspondence presented to us this afternoon and we have little doubt that if the Inferior Number had had before it the information in Dr Mirvis' letter they would still have reached the same decision that they did. 

3.        We have considered very carefully all the other matters but they all go to mitigation, and that is a problem that this Court faces.  We cannot in law interfere with a judgment below unless the decision is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.  The Court below took the view that we have.  The defendant knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he closed his eyes to the reality of the fraud that he was committing.  We cannot fault that finding.

4.        The Court went on to say this in mitigation:

"We have taken account of the guilty plea which to Wood's credit was entered at a very early stage.  It is very sad but inevitable that Wood's family have suffered, and will suffer, as a result of the long standing fraud that he committed. 

Having taken into account all the circumstances the Court has no doubt that fraud of this kind, and on this scale, must be punished by a prison sentence.  Others who might be tempted to defraud the Social Security Fund must be left in no doubt as to the likely consequences"

That, of course, is one of the purposes of sentencing.

5.        In the light of what Mr Wood has told us this afternoon we all have deep sympathy with the predicament of his children and his partner, but with some regret we can see nothing in the application before us that allows us to interfere with the Court below.

Authorities

Barnes -v- Attorney General (1988) JLR 669.

Gorvel -v- Attorney General (1973) JJ 2503.

Evans and Phillips -v- Attorney General (1997) JLR 94.

Clarkin and Pockett -v- Attorney General (1991) JLR 213.