Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC166

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9^th September 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Trevor Fortune

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

Age:  59.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Over a period of six Tax years, the defendant fraudulently failed to declare income totalling £63,584 of which arose from "private" decorating work.  The resulting lost tax amounted to £15,373.  Following enquiry from the Comptroller, the defendant had signed a Certificate of Full Disclosure which a subsequent investigation found to be false. 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant made admissions during his cautioned interview.  He admitted the infractions at the earliest opportunity.  By date of sentencing, he had paid his outstanding income tax.  His wife obtained a personal loan to pay the fine which was anticipated by the Court.  There had been a delay of over two years in bringing the matter to court. 

Previous Convictions:

2 old previous convictions in 1975 and 1983. 

Conclusions:

£2,000 Prosecution costs sought. 

Total: £25,200 or 14 weeks' imprisonment in default.  

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In view of Prosecution's long delay the Court reduced the conclusions and declined to make any order for costs. 

The Prosecution's costs were declined. 

Total: £20,000 or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default, 2 weeks to pay. 

Miss. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. E. Le Cornu for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        As has been said many times before, those who cheat the system in relation to their tax obligations place greater burdens on their fellow, law-abiding citizens who do pay their dues.  In this case the offending was aggravated by the deception and prevarication which continued after the investigation had begun.  The Court is, however, concerned about the long delay which has taken place in the prosecution of a very simple case.   The Defendant has had this hanging over his head for some 2 years and may well have thought that he would not in fact be prosecuted.  We do not think, in principle, that fines totally 40% of the maxima are necessarily inappropriate, but taking into consideration the delay and all the circumstances of the case we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly. 

2.        Mr Fortune you did make a very foolish mistake.  We accept your Counsel's submission that you are otherwise of good character, you are a hard-working man and it is a great pity that you should have spoilt your reputation at this stage of your life. 

3.        We have to punish you for the offences that you have admitted.  We are going to fine you on charge 1; £3,500, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, on each of charges 2-5; £3,500, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, and on charge 6; £2,500 or 1 week's imprisonment in default, making a total of £20,000 in fines or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default, with 2 weeks to pay. 

4.        We decline to make an order for the costs of the Prosecution. 

Authorities

AG-v-Webster 1998/84.

AG-v-Bates [2004] JRC 135.