Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC122

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd July 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Monica Phyllis Pallot

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

Age:  58.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant employed as a shop assistant at local jewellers.  Over a nine month period she stole on seven separate occasions the sum of £1,000 in cash from the safe.  On two months she did not steal any cash.  It was suspected that the sum was greater i.e. £14,500 but the Crown accepted her factual basis of larceny of £7,000.  £1,300 was recovered (Count 1). 

She also stole large quantity and variety of jewellery with a wholesale value of £1,988.67.  Many items still had their price tags on.  She had stolen because she had liked the look of them.  She had not worn them or sold any of the jewellery or given any of the jewellery to anybody else to use. 

Made full admissions in interview.  Admitted that had taken steps to cover tracks on the last occasion she had taken the monies.  Not a sophisticated crime but clearly had thought about the consequences of being caught in possession of an unaccounted £1,000.  Had used the monies not for luxuries but to help clear outstanding debts.  Had been living beyond her means. 

The Crown applied the factors in the case of Barrick.  The Crown contended that no alternative other than an immediate custodial sentence as there were no exceptional circumstances. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown.

Guilty plea, co-operative and early admissions.  First offender.  Loss of good character.  Personal circumstances:- caring for mother during ill health prior to death.  Still caring for elderly father.  Faced the possibility of bankruptcy and a low risk of re-offending. 

Defence

Not sophisticated and in a desperate situation.  Took monies to ease debts.  Not used for luxury items.  All jewellery recovered.  Actual loss to employer £5,700.  Remorse, good character, guilty plea, fully co-operative.  Contended this was an exceptional case in which a non custodial sentence could be imposed.  Suggested possibility of suspended sentence. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Total:  18 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defendant to be sentenced on 2 counts of larceny as a servant.  Count 1 related to the stealing over a nine month period of £7,000 by stealing seven separate amounts of £1,000 on seven occasions and the monies were used to meet and pay debts.  The Crown had accepted factual basis.  Count 2 was that she stole a quantity of jewellery with a wholesale value of £1,998.67 which she stole from her employer.  The Court for a long time has a policy of treating offences of this kind being breach of trust seriously and had met such cases with custodial sentences unless there have been exceptional circumstances.  The Court does not think there are exceptional circumstances here.  She was in a position of trust in a shop.  The offences may have been opportunistic but she took money and kept on taking money and approach after taking the money was not entirely unsophisticated.  The Court took into account all the available matters of mitigation.  Guilty plea, co-operative upon arrest and during interview.  She is now very sorry.  Credit given for good character and support of family and prior excellent work history.  Unfortunately custody is appropriate.  The Court felt able, however, to make some reduction in the Crown's conclusions given the family circumstances. 

Total:  12 months' imprisonment. 

J. C. Gollop, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Miss Pallot, you are to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains 2 counts of larceny as a servant.  In respect of the first count the circumstances are that you admit over a 9 month period having stolen a total of £7,000 from your employer, by stealing seven separate amounts of £1,000; in two of the months covered by this period you didn't steal anything.  The monies were, it is said, stolen and used for the purposes of attempting to pay your debts and the Crown has accepted that basis for the purposes of its conclusions.  On Count 2 you are charged with and admit stealing a quantity of jewellery, which has a wholesale value of £1,988.67 from your employer. 

2.        The Court has, for a long time, had a policy of treating offences of this kind, larceny in breach of trust, seriously and meting out as a result a custodial sentence and it has been said many times that there needs to be exceptional circumstances to depart from that policy.  I have to say straight away that the Court does not think there are exceptional circumstances in this case. 

3.        We have noted that you worked in a small shop, that you were a shop assistant rather than a manageress, and that you have regarded your employer as a good employer.  The Court has no doubt at all that you were in a position of trust in that shop and, in terms of the nature of the thefts, it may have been of an opportunistic theft of one kind but the fact that you were prepared to take some of the money and buy goods from a local retail store and then trade them back later on to get cash back, shows that you did not approach this matter in an entirely simplistic way. 

4.        We have taken account of all the factors which your counsel has very eloquently put to us.  Unfortunately in cases like this very often the accused person has many of the mitigating factors which have been mentioned and we recognise you have them; we recognise your guilty plea and give you have full credit for that; we recognise that you have been co-operative from the outset and we certainly recognise that you are very sorry now for what you have done.  We accept all that.  We give you credit for your good character and for the support from the family; we take into account your excellent work history and all the matters which are contained in the social enquiry report. 

5.        However we have reached the conclusion that a custodial sentence is appropriate.  For one reason only we are going to reduce the conclusions of the Crown.  The reduction is going to be because of the special circumstances within your family; the fact that your father will continue to need your care notwithstanding the support that he will get from other members of your family while you are in custody. 

6.        Taking those matters into account, the decision of the Court is that you should go to prison for 12 months on each count, concurrent. 

Authorities

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

Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142 @ 145.