Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud - larceny.

[2014]JRC013

Royal Court

(Samedi)

17 January 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

David Samuel Ogilvie

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

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant obtained £180 from his friend by claiming it as a disbursement in an unfair dismissal claim with which the defendant was supposedly helping (Count 1).  The defendant maintained pretence as to progress over a long period, culminating in an entirely false account of ever-increasing settlement offers and ultimately a handsome payout.  In fact nothing had been achieved. 

The same friend was also looking for accommodation for his wife.  The defendant pretended that his sister had a flat to rent, showed his friend round his son's flat, and fraudulently obtained £760 as advance rent paid to an account supposedly of his sister but in fact, that of his  girlfriend (Count 2). 

The defendant then met a woman who had recently received a divorce settlement.  While on bail for Counts 1 and 2, he befriended her, wrote one of her cheques out to himself for £38,000, forged her signature, used the passwords she had entrusted to him to obtain access to her internet banking and email accounts, and sent an email purportedly from her instructing the transfer of £38,000 between her accounts to ensure the cheque would clear (Count 3).  He then took her to London for a luxury weekend break, paid for rental of their new apartment and other luxuries, all unbeknownst to her, from her own funds.  In the nine day period between the theft and his arrest, he spent just short of £18,000, the majority of which was on gambling.  When she discovered the loss, he promised to reimburse her but instead fled to Scotland.  Her bank reimbursed her for the entire loss. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, cooperation and some remorse.  Letter from victim of Count 3 stating that she had forgiven him, resumed their relationship, and regularly sent money to him in prison on remand. 

Previous Convictions:

26 convictions over twenty years for theft, fraud and kindred offences. 

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Compensation Order made in favour of HSBC in the sum of £20,171.65 with 12 months in which to pay or 12 months' imprisonment in default.   

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment that contains two counts of fraud against a friend and former colleague, and a count of larceny against your partner.  The Court has listened carefully to all the mitigation which has been put forward by your counsel on your behalf but we regret to say that we have no sympathy for you in this offending at all. 

2.        The offending took place, in the case of your friend Mr Cross, over a period of some 10 or 11 months where, by a series of lies and a continuation of them, the whole story was fabricated, and one of the results was that in excitement that he had achieved a result through your good efforts he then took some friend out to celebrate.  In connection with the offence against your partner, part of the larceny involved taking her money and paying for a luxury weekend in London with her when she thought that you were treating her yourself.  You exploited her for that weekend over the course of the whole weekend, knowing that in fact she was paying for it and allowing her to think that you were.  It is this sort of breach of trust on both occasions which leads the Court to have the view that it has no sympathy at all for this offending and you are here today to be sentenced for the offences you have committed. 

3.        The Court does not regard a gambling problem as mitigation and we have absolutely no doubt that in accordance with the usual authorities, the precedents that we have followed, the policy the Court follows in cases involving breach of trust, that the custodial sentence is right and that the conclusions of the Crown are not a day too long.  In particular as to the length of the prison sentence having regard to your previous record we take the view the Crown is right to say that there must be some escalation in the period you are sentenced for in prison, having regard to the sentences that have previously been imposed and all the other circumstances including the amount which is involved and the period over which it is taken, but in particular here, the breaches of trust which we find to be significant and so accordingly on the Indictment you are sentenced as the Crown has moved for to 3 months' imprisonment on Count 1, 6 months', concurrent, on Count 2 and 2½ years, consecutive, on Count 3, making a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

4.        We also make a Compensation order in favour of HSBC in the sum of £20,171.65 which is the amount I understand to be in the bank account at present and there will be a default imprisonment sentence of 12 months if that sum is not paid within the next 12 months. 

Authorities

AG v Ogilvie 1998/110.

AG v Ogilvie and Brockwell [2007] JRC 023.

AG v Huchet [2013] JRC 002.

Congdon v AG Unreported 12.2.02

AG v Dauny [2010] JRC 141.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey Third Edition.