Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC187

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

22^nd October, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Piers Ross Coke-Wallis;

Natalie Elizabeth Coke-Wallis

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 16^th September, 2003 following conviction on:

 

1 count of:

Failure to comply with a direction issued by the Jersey Finance Services Commission, contrary to Article 20(9) of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law, 1998.

 

Piers Ross Coke-Wallis

 

Age:     41

 

Details of Offence:

Breach of a direction issued by Jersey Financial Services Commission contrary to Article 20 (9) of the Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998.

 

The Commission issued a number of directions.  One of these directions was that no documentation or records should be removed from offices of Coke-Wallis companies.  Natalie Coke-Wallis made it known that she did not intend to comply with the direction.  The Commission sent a second set of directions and warning letter.  The Coke-Wallises hatched a plan to breach the directions.  Piers Coke-Wallis gave written instructions to his wife as to what documentation should be removed from the office.  Piers and Natalie Coke-Wallis then were seen at the ferry terminal.  Piers Coke Wallis was driving a Mercedes motorcar containing a large quantity of documentation and computer equipment.  This was material covered by the direction.

 

Amongst the records being removed from the office were some permanent records such as letters of wishes, trust deeds and memorandums and articles of association of companies.  This was a flagrant deliberate, well-planned breach of the Commissions' directions.  Both Coke-Wallises elected to trial.

 

Natalie Coke-Wallis gave evidence and was disbelieved.  Piers Coke-Wallis did not give evidence.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Good character.  Natalie Coke Wallis' elderly mother was ill and she was the primary carer.  Their business was ruined.  They had no future in the finance industry.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

£7,500 fine or 6 months' imprisonment in default of payment.

£15,000 costs to be paid jointly and severally by defendants

 

Given the importance of the Commission in maintaining the reputation of the Island as a finance centre of high repute, persons could normally expect to be sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment for breach of directions.  They had both come very close to custody.  However in this case the personal mitigation allowed the Court to deal with the matter by way of fine.

 

 

Natalie Elizabeth Coke-Wallis

 

Age:     38        

 

Details of Offence:

See above.

Details of Mitigation:

See above.

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

£7,500 fine or 6 months' imprisonment in default of payment.

£15,000 costs to be paid jointly and severally by defendants

 

 

 

S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.L. Preston for P.R. Coke-Wallis.

Advocate P.C. Harris for N.E. Coke-Wallis.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Piers Coke-Wallis and Natalie Coke-Wallis, each of you has been convicted after a trial of failing to comply with a direction issued by the Jersey Financial Services Commission.  Despite your denials the evidence was compelling.  It showed a flagrant and deliberate breach of a direction which the Jurats expressly found had been served upon you, or rather on the second defendant, Natalie Coke-Wallis. 

2.        The Jurats, by their verdict, found that you had jointly planned to flout that direction and that you did so three days later.  The Court bears in mind your good characters and that this is your first offence.  The Court has read all the testimonials and the Social Enquiry Reports, and has taken into account that by virtue of your convictions, your careers and reputations in the financial world are ruined and that you have already suffered as a result.  The Court also bears in mind the fact that no one, apparently, has actually suffered financial loss.

3.        On the other hand, it is important that the high reputation in which Jersey financial institutions are regarded by the international financial business world should be protected.  The Jersey Financial Commissioners have the task of ensuring that this reputation is maintained and this, the courts will do their best to support.

4.        The Crown's conclusion is that sentences of twelve months' imprisonment should be imposed.  You have come very close to receiving such sentences.  It is only because of your personal mitigation that the Court feels able to accede to your pleas that such a penalty can be avoided in this case.  The Court wishes to make it clear that, in general, a prison sentence would be appropriate for this kind of offence.  However, having listened to Counsel, the Court feels able, though with considerable reservations, to impose fines in lieu of prison sentences.  The sentences on each of you is that you pay a fine of £7,500 and in default of payment, each of you will serve six months' imprisonment.

[There followed a discussion about costs.]

5.        The Crown is seeking an order for payment of its costs in the sum of £15,000.  You each contested the trial as you were fully entitled to do, but the result of that was a two-day trial and it was due to your contesting it that the Prosecution costs have largely been incurred.  The Court orders you to pay £15,000 in costs jointly and severally to the Prosecution.

No Authorities