Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny as a servant - embezzlement.

[2017]JRC133

Royal Court

(Samedi)

25 August 2017

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee David Arnold

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

Age:  38. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendant was employed by Jacksons (CI) Limited as a Sales Manager of Motor Mall at Mont a L'Abbe between 8^th September, 2014, and 7^th September, 2016. 

Count 1

In April 2016 Customer A and her husband went to Motor Mall to buy a new car, they took with them a Honda CRV (J31802) for which they received £14,500 part-exchange, which amount was taken off the new car they purchased.  The Honda remained registered to the customer's name until 4^th May, 2016, when it was transferred to Derek Warwick Honda.  The defendant contacted Brian Hamilton, a car dealer, and arranged for him to sell the CRV to Derek Warwick Honda for £11,500.  Mr Hamilton paid the defendant by cheque in the amount of £11,000, keeping £500 as payment for negotiating the transaction.  On 11^th May, 2016, the defendant paid the cheque into his bank account. 

Count 2

On 27^th June, 2016, Customer B purchased a Peugeot 108 (J102245), for her granddaughter from the defendant.  The payment for the vehicle was broken down as part exchange of £2,000 for a Peugeot 106 (J46807) a £500 deposit, paid on 27^th June, 2016, and a credit card payment of £11,495 on 29^th June, 2016.  Motor Mall received the £500 deposit and £11,495 card payment.  The Peugeot 106 remained registered to the customer until 4^th July when it was transferred to Customer C.  Customer C bought the Peugeot 106 from the defendant at Motor Mall for £400.  This £400 was not paid on to Motor Mall and Motor Mall had no record of the Peugeot 106 in stock and no records relating to its sale. 

Count 3

In June or July 2016 Customer D part exchanged her black Ford Fiesta (J118503) towards the purchase of a new car from Motor Mall.  The vehicle remained registered to her until it was transferred to Customer E on 14^th July, 2016.  In July 2016 Customer E's partner, Customer F, went to Motor Mall and purchased a black Ford Fiesta from the defendant.  The defendant provided him with banking details to transfer the funds for the purchase of the vehicle.  Customer F transferred three payments totalling £4,800 to the account.  He believed he was purchasing the vehicle from Motor Mall and transferring the payment for their benefit.  In fact the account details were for the defendant's personal bank account and not the account of Motor Mall. 

The defendant was employed by Freelance (CI) Limited as a Sales Manager between 13^th September, 2016, and 3^rd April, 2017. 

Count 4

On 8^th March, 2017, Customer G, a UK dealer, purchased a Triumph Stag (J17990) from the defendant for £10,000.  Customer G stated that he believed he was purchasing the car from Freelance.  Payment for the car was made by bank transfer of £9,000 and a cash payment of £1,000 on collection of the car.  Customer G believed that he was transferring the money to Freelance's bank account, but the details provided by the defendant were for his own bank account.  This vehicle had been received by Freelance as a part exchange vehicle.  The defendant invoiced the Stag at £4,500 on the Freelance system log, and the payment for the vehicle was made from the defendant's debit card, Customer G also made a cash payment of £1,000 on collection of the car.  The outstanding balance owing to the company for the Stag was therefore £4,500. 

Count 5

In March 2017 Customer G purchased a Porsche 911 (J91171) from the defendant for £22,000.  Customer G again stated that he believed he was purchasing the car from Freelance.  Payment for the car was made by bank transfer and two payments were made on 20^th March, 2017, for £9,000 and £13,000 respectively.  Again he believed that he was transferring the money to Freelance's bank account, but the details provided by the defendant were for his own bank account.  The defendant transferred £10,000 to Freelance, leaving an outstanding balance of £12,000.  The Porsche 911 had been received by Freelance as a part exchange vehicle from a Mr Le C, and was still recorded as being in stock. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Money spent on gambling and alcohol - no high living.

Previous Convictions:

Four convictions for eight offences.  None for dishonesty.

Conclusions:

Total: 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £14,500 to Freelance (CI) Limited.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

No Compensation Order made.

R. MacRae, Esq., Attorney General.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for four counts of larceny as a servant and one of embezzlement.  The offending against your second employer took place after you had been charged for the earlier offending from your first employer and that is a significant aggravating feature.  The details of your offending have been set out by the Attorney-General and we do not need to repeat them in these remarks.  We simply say that the value that you have gained and your employers have lost was £32,700. 

2.        The Crown has approached the matter of sentencing by reference to the case of R v Barrick [1985] 7 Cr App R (S) 142 which the Court adopts in cases such as this as to its criteria but not necessary as to the level of appropriate sentence.  We agree with the way the Crown has characterised your offending by reference to the relevant factors in that case.  These were on any analysis blatant breaches of trust and they of course are exacerbated by the factor that I mentioned earlier, namely that the offending against the second employer took place after you had been charged in respect of the first. 

3.        You have the mitigation of your guilty plea, and we have read with care the references that have been written about you.  They do speak to a very different side of your character and it is deeply regrettable how much pain these kinds of offences causes to members of an offender's family who are themselves innocent of any wrong doing.  But the policy of the Court has been oft stated and it is only in exceptional circumstances that custody is avoidable where a breach of trust of this nature is concerned. 

4.        We have considered the matter of compensation but there is insufficient information before us to suggest that you would have any means to discharge any material level of compensation, and we do not think it is appropriate in these circumstances to make any order for compensation.  That is not to say of course, that those from whom you have cost money are not able to recover it from you through the civil courts, but that will be a matter for them and for those courts. 

5.        We turn to the question of sentencing and in our view the Crown has got the level right and we therefore intend to adopt the sentences moved for by the Crown in its conclusion.  With regard to Count 1 you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  With regard to Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  With regard to Count 3; 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  Count 4; 12 months' imprisonment, consecutive, and Count 5; 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 4 but consecutive to the others, making a total of 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

R v Barrick [1985] 7 Cr App R (S) 142. 

AG v Gouveia [2016] JRC 166A. 

AG v Esnouf [2016] JRC 108. 

AG v Barnett Roberts [2013] JRC 042B. 

AG v Oliveira [2012] JRC 018. 

AG v Zielinski [2008] JRC 028. 

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