Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Goddard [2004] JRC 105 (11 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2004/2004_105.html
Cite as: [2004] JRC 105

[New search] [Help]

[2004]JRC105

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th June, 2004

Before:

F.C. Hamon Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq and Bullen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Margaret Rose Goddard

1 count of:

Larceny as a servant.

Age: 61

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant stole, over the course of 12 months, a total of £12,741.24 from the grocery shop where she worked on the till. She did this by entering false refund transactions in the sums of £50 -£100. The thefts were captured on the CCTV installed in the shop premises and the discrepancies showed on the printed till rolls.

When arrested, the Defendant immediately admitted the offences. A search of her flat revealed that the Defendant had spent all the stolen money on clothes and toiletries that she had "hoarded" unused in her bedroom. In total, 62 black bin bags of property were recovered by the Police.

Reports before the Court suggested that the Defendant suffered from "Compulsive Obsessive Disorder" and was very unlikely to re-offend. She had no funds with which to pay back her ex-employer.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation, previous good character, diagnosed as suffering from "Compulsive Obsessive Disorder".

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

240 hours Community Service Order.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. This was an exceptional case. The Court stated that had it not been for the contents of the reports, it would have had no hesitation in ordering a custodial sentence.

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate O. Blakeley for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1. Had it not been for the Psychological and Social Enquiry Reports this Court,I have to tell you, would have had no hesitation in sending you to prison. These are offences which involve a very serious breach of trust. You have systematically taken a great deal of money from an employer who trusted you.

2. However, we are going to follow the recommendations of the Crown. We agree that this is totally exceptional. You will undertake 240 hours Community Service. I must remind you that the Crown would have moved for 12 months' imprisonment in your case, had they not decided against a prison sentence.

3. Again, I have to tell you this is not a soft option. You will be found work that you are able to perform, but you must realise that the purpose of sentencing you in this way is that you will pay something back to the community.

Authorities

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

A.G. -v- Young (31^st July, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/164].

A.G. -v- Magrico (27^th February 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/43].

A.G. -v- Morrow (25^th April, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/79].