Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC188

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th September 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Kelvin Peter Monet

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

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 4^th February, 2009, Graeme Holley was unable to locate his chequebook and therefore cancelled it.  On 7^th February, he was called by the manager of Vins Direct regarding a cheque dated 7^th February, 2009, used in purported payment for goods worth £76.96 (Count 2).  Mr Holley contacted his bank, who confirmed that various cheques had been written on his account after he had last used the chequebook and he therefore reported the chequebook stolen to the police. 

Mr Holley's bank then provided three cheques, on each of which appeared a forged signature, and which were made payable to Olympus Sports, Airtel Vodaphone and Kingfisher Takeaway.  Police officers seized CCTV recordings from Vins Direct, and on viewing it a police officer recognised Monet, who was in custody on an unrelated matter.  Whilst in custody he damaged a pair of cell safety shorts valued at £50.

He was interviewed and answered "no comment" to most  questions.  Later the same day he was re-interviewed and admitted forging the cheques to Vins Direct and Olympus Sports, but denied writing the other cheques.  It was noted that the word "ninety" had been incorrectly spelt as "nighty" on both the Vins Direct and the Airtel Vodaphone cheques.

On 11^th March, 2009, Monet was seen to put a bottle into an inside pocket of his coat while in the Co-op, Charing Cross, and leave, making no attempt to pay.  A staff member stopped him outside and found a bottle of Moët et Chandon Rose Champagne valued at £28.99.  Monet attempted to escape but ran into the path of a passing vehicle, injuring himself.  In interview he admitted the offence of larceny, saying that the champagne was intended as a present for his mother.

In the meantime a number of further complaints relating to "bounced" cheques from Mr Holley's account were received by the police.  On 26^th March, 2009, Monet attended the Police Station voluntarily and was re-interviewed.  At this stage he admitted writing the cheques that form the basis of eight more counts.  He was given the opportunity to admit any further related offences but chose not to do so.  Further forged cheques were passed to the police.  In total 24 cheques were identified as having been fraudulently written on Mr Holley's cheque book.

On 18^th May, 2009, Monet was re-interviewed and admitted to having been in possession of Mr Holley's chequebook, although he did not say how he came into possession of it.  He also admitted presenting all of the above cheques.

On 20^th February, 2008, Monet was sentenced by the Magistrate to a 12 month Binding Over Order for an offence of malicious damage.  This offence also related to damage caused to a police cell suit valued at £100.  The current offending places Monet in breach of this order.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, pregnant girlfriend, employment.

Previous Convictions:

14 previous convictions comprising 52 offences.

Conclusions:

Total:  19 months' imprisonment.

No additional penalty in relation to the breach of the Magistrate's Court Binding Over Order on 20^th February, 2008.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total:  12 months' imprisonment.

No additional penalty made for the breach of the Binding Over Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 20^th February, 2008.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate K. O. Dixon for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for 1 count of receiving stolen goods, 1 count of malicious damage, 1 count of larceny and 24 counts of obtaining goods by false pretences to a total value of £2,570.24.  The receiving and false pretences offences arose out of a chequebook belonging to a Mr Graeme Holley which the defendant says he found in King Street and decided to keep.  Under the influence of alcohol he used it and found that he was able to purchase goods with it, namely training shoes, a phone, takeaway food and alcohol in addition to some luxury goods which have not been recovered.  At the time he says he was consuming over a litre of vodka a day.

2.        The defendant has a bad record and he has been subject to Binding Over Orders, fines, community service and custody, although it is true that his rate of offending appears to have slowed between 2001 and 2004 when he was in a stable relationship.  However these offences were committed when he was a subject of a Binding Over Order for 12 months imposed by the Magistrate on 20^th February, 2008.  That offence involved malicious damage to a police cell suit valued at £100.

3.        In the case of AG-v-Hamon 1998/104 the Court stated that:-

"Cheque and credit card frauds, by and large, attract custodial sentences, and the range, I have to say is between six months and eighteen months, but each case must turn on its facts."

4.        The Crown seek a total sentence for all the offences here of 19 months' imprisonment.  The defence do not challenge the sentencing band.

5.        In terms of mitigation the defendant no longer has the benefit of youth but he has pleaded guilty to all the offences and is entitled to credit for that.  He has been in a relationship for some 30 months and indeed he and his partner are expecting a child in February.  We have read your letter and we have read your partner's letter and know that she is currently in Australia but returning in November.  It is clear that alcohol is at the root of your problems although, as the Court has said on many occasions, it is not a mitigating factor.  We also note that you have voluntarily signed up to the mentoring programme run by Freedom for Life Ministry and that Mr Houiellebecq from that Ministry is in Court to support you.

6.        However, these offences are too serious and the mitigation insufficient to allow us to treat this case as exceptional.  We are prepared however to reduce the sentences sought and to treat count 27 as concurrent.

7.        On count 1; you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, on counts 2 to 25; you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, all concurrent.  On count 26; you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent and on count 27; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  Each sentence is concurrent with the other giving rise to a total of 12 months' imprisonment. 

8.        We note that no additional penalty is sought by the Crown in relation to the breach of the Binding Over Order.

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

AG-v-Hamon 1998/104.