Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC020

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

30^th January, 2004.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Jonathan Harris

 

1 count of:

Embezzlement.

 

Age:     33.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Whilst employed by Collect Services Ltd, a recovery agency, the Defendant embezzled nearly £60,000 over a period of 23 months between January 2000 and December 2001.  None of the money was recovered.   Accounting procedures at the company were abysmal and there was never a reconciliation between cash banked and client computer records, despite the company knowing that there was a large and increasing debt.  Defendant had a gambling addiction, costing him between £700 and £800 per week.  It was not until May, 2003 that the Company instructed an auditor to investigate discrepancies.  On 20^th May, 2003, the Defendant handed himself into Police Headquarters, lodging his passport, and admitting his responsibility for stealing money which he estimated to be £60,000.  At the time, the company had not reported the matter to the police, nor was the Defendant suspected.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea - in fact wrote his own indictment.  Total co-operation with police.  A broken man who had brought disgrace on himself and his family, as a result of which his marriage had failed.  Excellent father to his 5 and 13-year-old daughters.  Numerous personal references.  Support of his family.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

18 months' imprisonment.

 

Despite the plea of Defence Counsel that any prison sentence should be suspended, the Court "with a heavy heart" concluded that an immediate term of imprisonment was required.

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        David Harris, over a period of two years from January 2000 to December 2001, you stole £60,000 from your employer, Collect Services Limited.  This was to feed your gambling addiction.  It is clear that that accounting procedures of your employer were rudimentary in the extreme and it was an easy fraud for you to commit, thereby increasing, no doubt, the temptation.  But the fact remains that it was a gross breach of trust on your part. 

2.        As is so often the case in matters like this, there is very powerful mitigation.  Mrs Pearmain has put it forward very powerfully.  In the first place you voluntarily admitted these offences.  You went to the police in May, 2003.  It may be that you knew that investigations were coming; but it is clear that it would not necessarily have been possible to prove that it was you as opposed to someone else who had stolen these monies.  We are satisfied therefore that you did write your own indictment.  You were co-operative from the start, and you pleaded guilty at an early stage.   This made the Prosecution's task much easier and pleas of guilty in such circumstances are of great value.  Thirdly, you had virtually stopped after December, 2001, and yet the offences were not discovered until later.

3.        You have no previous convictions.  We have seen the many references which have been written on your behalf.  If we may say so, we found the letter from your wife a moving document.  You are fortunate that although your marriage may now be breaking up because of what you have done you have the friendship and support of such a loyal friend. 

4.        We take into account, therefore, the effect on the family and on both your daughters.  We accept that you are at low risk of re-offending and that you have shown real remorse and that you did not spend the money on high living.  Your addiction appears perhaps to have had its origins in your up-bringing although we cannot, of course - and nor can you - blame your father's hobby for your addiction.

5.        We are particually pleased to note that you have made real efforts to conquer your addiction since this came to light and we have read carefully the report of Mr Henderson and note that you are attending his sessions and Jersey Gamblers Anonymous and that you are contributing to them.

6.        Mrs Pearmain asked us to consider a community service order.  We have carefully considered that.  The policy of the Court is clear: unless there are exceptional circumstances, in breach of trust cases involving this sort of sum of money a custodial sentence is inevitable.  We cannot say that there is anything exceptional in this case, so we cannot accept community service.

7.        We next considered the length of a custodial sentence and we have taken account of the powerful mitigating factors I have listed and the matters mentioned by Mrs Pearmain and we think that a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment is right. 

8.        The final issue we have had to consider is whether that sentence can be suspended.  We have discussed this at some length, but the Court has a clear policy that in breach of trust cases a strong message has to be sent out.  This is particularly important in an Island whose main industry depends upon trust.

9.        We accept that there will be some breach of trust cases which can now be dealt with by a suspended sentence where they lie at the lower end of the scale.  But this offence involved £60,000 over two years; and with a heavy heart we have concluded that we cannot proceed by way of a suspended sentence.  The sentence therefore is an immediate one of 18 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): paras. 346 - 369; 457 - 478.

Congdon -v- A.G. (12^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/38].

A.G. -v- Murphy (14^th April 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/68].

Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences) (Jersey) Law 2003.