Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC044

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th March 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Daniel Tai Keith Vincent

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to:

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In January 2006, the Parish of St Saviour commenced paying the defendant weekly welfare.  The defendant then started renting a flat.  The defendant sought and was granted an increase in his weekly welfare payment on the understanding that he would put this extra sum to the payment of his rent.  Save for one week, however, the defendant made no further rental payments and moved out of the flat, however, he told the Parish that he was still paying rent and continued to claim rent rebate, over a period commencing 6^th October, 2006 and ending on 24^th August, 2007.  The defendant defrauded the Parish of £5,170.

On 31^st August, 2007, the defendant attempted to obtain the further sum of £110 towards rent, he was, however, arrested by a waiting officer before he could do so.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, remorse, steady employment.

Previous Convictions:

12 previous convictions for 32 offences, including 8 dishonesty offences.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 12 months' Probation Order with conditions as set out in Social Enquiry Report and a Treatment Order as recommended, and 150 hours Community Service Order.

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Vincent, benefit fraud is a serious offence as we think you must know.  Cheating on your fellow citizens, making it more difficult for those who turn up at the Parish Hall to obtain allowances of various kinds in the future, is a matter which generally speaking is punished with a custodial sentence.

2.        We have read all the reports very carefully and in particular we have seen that you have now got a job with an employer who speaks very highly of you and we want to encourage you to change your ways because life so far has not been very successful for you.  We understand that you have had problems, but you are now 21 and it is time to stand on your own feet and look ahead and try and put what has gone wrong before behind you.

3.        I said to your counsel before she began her submissions that we might not agree entirely with the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.  We have in mind to agree that you should be placed on probation but also that we should impose a sentence of community service on you.  There is no point in imposing a sentence of community service unless you are prepared to co-operate with the community service organiser and that means not giving spurious excuses for not turning up; not making difficulties with the community service organisers as to the kind of work you do, or where you go.

4.        The Court is going to deal with you by way of a non-custodial sentence.  We are going to place you on probation for a period of 12 months, subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by your probation officer and that you carry out any of the courses that the Probation Service require you to do. 

5.        We are also going to order you to do 150 hours community service and the default period of imprisonment is 9 months, so if you do not perform that community service to the satisfaction of the organisers you will be brought back before the Court and we will have little option but to impose a custodial sentence.  We hope this is not going to happen, we think you have a chance now to turn your life around and we want to encourage you to do that.  We hope you leave this Court determined to keep your job, improve your prospects and get on and make something of your life.

No Authorities