Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC048

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th March 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Charles Barette

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction by the Assize Court on a charge of:

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

B. H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. St. J. O'Connell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant was convicted by the unanimous verdict of the Jury of a single offence of fraud, the remaining counts on the indictment having been withdrawn by the trial judge at the conclusion of the prosecution case.

2.        The Crown Advocate has submitted rightly that there was a serious breach of trust with a number of aggravating features.  We find the following aggravating factors:

(i)        Barette and Gruchy Limited was trusted completely by all the growers who delivered their potatoes to the packing station, including Mr de la Haye, to deal correctly and fairly with the produce which was delivered.  Given the nature of the process Mr de la Haye had no choice but to place total reliance on Mr Green first of all and then the defendant to record accurately the quantity of potatoes which had been accepted and for which payment was due.

(ii)       It is notorious that the agricultural industry has been facing great difficulties in recent years and the duty owed by the defendant to the growers and to Mr de la Haye, in particular, was consequently all the greater.

(iii)      The defendant is a qualified chartered accountant, who has been trained to understand the importance of audit trails and appropriate bookkeeping techniques.  Yet on two occasions outside normal working hours he carefully altered computer records which can only be interpreted in the light of the Jury's verdict as deliberate attempts to deceive and to cover up his offence.

(iv)      When confronted with his actions he lied to his accuser and attempted to brazen out what he had done.

3.        Turning to the mitigation on the other hand the defendant is aged 39 and is a first offender.  He exercised his right to silence at police interview which he was perfectly entitled to do and pleaded not guilty at trial.  Again he was perfectly entitled to put the Crown to proof of its allegations.

4.        The result is, however, that there can be no credit for remorse or for a guilty plea.  The Court has been provided with an impressive set of references from many people in all walks of life in the Island testifying to the defendant's previous good character, to the fact that he is a good and caring family man and in short that his actions between May and August 2002 were out of character.  We take all that very much into account. 

5.        We also take account of the personal tragedies and difficulties with which the defendant has had to cope over the years. 

6.        Defence counsel has drawn our attention to the period of time during which the defendant has had this matter hanging over his head.  It is true that the investigation was a long one but as against that there was no explanation from the defendant until trial and no real co-operation with the investigators as a result of which the unravelling of the fraud was inevitably going to be drawn out.

7.        Counsel has submitted that the defendant was massively over-committed in terms of work load involving JPMO litigation with the States and family pressures and had made a monumental error of judgment.  We take all that into account.  Our conclusion however is that this was a relatively sophisticated fraud, and while the amount involved in the offence of which the defendant was convicted is low the offending has to be set against the background of the way in which the accounting records were manipulated to the detriment of the growers.

8.        Counsel has addressed us most powerfully in mitigation and could not have said more.  We have taken all that very carefully into account.  It is a sad state of affairs that you are in the situation in which you find yourself and we have great sympathy, in particular, for your family.  But you were in a position of responsibility and in a position of trust.

9.        You defrauded a grower who had placed his trust in you in a despicable way and we have to impose a punishment for that offence.  We can find no exceptional circumstances which would justify us in treating this case other than as a case which requires the imposition of a custodial sentence.

10.      We think that the conclusions of 18 months' imprisonment would have been entirely right had you been convicted on all seven counts.  We propose, however, to make allowance for the six counts that were withdrawn from the Jury and the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for a period of 12 months.

11.      So far as the costs of the prosecution are concerned you were in a position to assist the investigation, you did not do so and as a result considerable costs were incurred.  You will pay a sum of, not exceeding £10,000, towards the costs of the prosecution. 

No Authorities