Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/57

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th March, 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Melanie Anne Langlois

Plea:    Guilty.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Advocate B.H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.E. Fitz for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an unusual case.   The Defendant has pleaded guilty to 2 counts of wrongfully obtaining family allowances contrary to Article 16(b) of the Family Allowances (Jersey) Law, 1972.   The total amount wrongfully obtained over a period of some two and a half years was of the order of £12,000.   The maximum penalty, however, for an offence under this Article of the Family Allowances Law is a fine of £500 or three months' imprisonment, which has remained unchanged since 1972.   The maximum penalty is clearly quite inadequate today and we express the hope that the legislature will give consideration to bringing it up to date.   It is also clear on the facts that the accused might well have been charged with fraud at common law where the maximum penalties are unlimited.   In one sense, therefore, the accused has been fortunate.   On the other hand the personal circumstances of the accused - set out in all the reports which have been placed before us - show that, in recent years in particular, she has been very far from fortunate.   We take note of the fact that she has a five year old child with very special needs and we well understand why the Crown Advocate has moved for a non-custodial penalty as an act of mercy so that disproportionate punishment is not visited upon the child.

2.        This was, however, a serious offence and we again understand why the Crown Advocate has moved for a penalty of 180 hours of community service, which is, broadly speaking, the equivalent of 12 months imprisonment which might very well have been the appropriate sentence had it not been for the unusual personal circumstances.   Unfortunately we have some doubt that it would be appropriate to impose an order for community service of which the equivalent custodial term goes far beyond the maximum penalty which the Court is able to impose.   The generally accepted guideline equivalent to three months' imprisonment is 90 hours community service.  

3.        Having given anxious consideration to all the circumstances of the case we have reached the conclusion that the only proper penalty in these circumstances is one of 90 hours community service.

4.        Mrs. Langlois, we therefore impose a community service order of 90 hours which you will perform to the satisfaction of the appropriate community service organiser and we declare that the equivalent sentence which we would have imposed is one of three months imprisonment.   We give permission for the community service to be performed in Northern Ireland but we want you to understand that if you do not perform the community service in the proper way you will be at risk of being brought back to the island again and punished for these offences.   We hope that that will not happen and that the performance of the community service will bring this long drawn out matter to a conclusion.   You are free to leave the Court.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Halsall (9^th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Horgan (22^nd January, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/18].

A.G. -v- Reynolds & Tadier (26^th February, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/43].

R.-v- Stewart & Ors. [1987] 2 All ER 383.