Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud.

[2018]JCR056

Royal Court

(Samedi)

9 March 2018

The Attorney General

-v-

Kelly Ann Callec

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  36.  

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The single count of fraud encompassed a course of offending over a period of approximately 26 months, the defendant stealing, forging and presenting 38 cheques drawn on a widowed aunt's bank accounts, thereby obtaining £46,236.  The offending came to light when the aunt, in failing health, was hospitalised after a fall; her brother came to the Island to support her and, with access to her bank statements, noticed a cheque for £2,000 being cashed while his sister was in hospital.  Trying to identify the transaction it became apparent that numerous cheque stubs had been removed from the victim's cheque books over several years.  All the missing stubs related to payments benefitting the defendant.  In interview the defendant stated the cheques had been written and signed by her aunt and that they were gifts - an 'early inheritance'.  With regard to the removal of cheque stubs the defendant suggested her aunt may have done this to keep the 'gifts' private.  The defendant denials, continual challenges of evidence and intimations necessitated considerable further investigatory work to be undertaken.  Eventual guilty plea, no recoverable funds. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea on Indictment.  Provided support to aunt prior to the offending.  Many supportive letters indicated the defendant had been well regarded in the community.  Defence counsel was instructed to request the Court to exercise the prerogative of mercy for the sake of client's three children, upon whom separation from their mother would have a significant effect.  Defence also sought some benefit on grounds of delay - nearly two years between first interview and sentence.

Previous Convictions:

2002 - Larceny servant - over a period of circa 4 months stole goods to value of £189 from employer - fined £250.

2005 - False accounting x 2 - over a period of circa 2 months used a customer's returned store card to buy goods to value of £368, clearing the customer's 'bill' by using other customers' loyalty points - 90 hours Community Service.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

M. R. Maletroit, Esq; Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which charges you with one count of fraud in that between 30^th April, 2013, and 2^nd July, 2015, in Jersey you fraudulently presented 38 cheques being forgeries thus which you had made out yourself and obtained the sum of £46,236 to the prejudice of your aunt.  

2.        The offence which has been charged rolls together a number of different offences, and at one level there might have been an argument that it was bad for duplicity.  That point has not been taken by your counsel, I think rightly, because there is no injustice to you, but it is right that I set out the details of the cheques which are concerned because you are entitled to have on the record, which is not part of the Crown's summary but now therefore on the record, and will appear in these sentencing remarks recorded in the Court's Judgment, which cheques we are talking about. 

and:-

and:

and:-

As I have said, I have set those out in detail because it is important that there can be no difficulty in the future as to which offences were the subject of this Indictment.

3.        You not only took the cheques and forged the signatures, but you concealed that, because you removed the cheque stubs from the cheque books; and as is obvious from what I have just described you did it thirty-eight times.  

4.        The offences were committed over a period of 2 years and 2 months', and committed in breach of trust, because your aunt trusted you in the house.  You had access to her things, and you breached that trust and the Court regards that as being a very serious breach of trust indeed.  

5.        The sentencing policy of the court is well established, and that is that is for offences of this kind involving a breach of trust, unless there are exceptional circumstances the Court imposes a custodial sentence.  

6.        Your counsel rightly accepted there were no exceptional circumstances here, although he did ask us to grant, apply mercy, and spare you imprisonment.  The court does have a jurisdiction to spare imprisonment on an application of mercy but we do not think it is appropriate to do that here. 

7.        Essentially, the ground of mercy was put to us on the basis that this would have an effect on your three children.  I want to say something about that, because it has been said in this court many times that the person who has the first obligation to think about your children is you.  It is just not right to put on the court the obligation, or the worry of thinking about the children that you should have thought about when you committed these offences.  And, indeed the custodial sentence for their mother will teach them that dishonesty does not pay and it has a bad outcome.  They need to know that lesson because we all need to know it.  

8.        We have noted the convictions which you have for offences of dishonesty in the past and they exist, one cannot do anything about them, they are there, but we have noted that they were 10 and 15 years ago, respectively.  

9.        You are entitled to credit for your guilty plea and we certainly have taken into account the references which you have put before us.  Those are very positive references because they all speak to other qualities you have which are good things to hold on to and to take out of these proceedings.  There are people who recognise those good qualities and the court knows that they are there, but at the end of the day it cannot have a very great effect on the sentence we impose.  

10.      Your counsel says that we should take into account delay.  We do not agree with that.  We think that the delay was almost entirely caused by your own conduct because when you were asked questions by the police you did not tell them the truth.  You covered up what you have done, or you tried to.  You suggested that your aunt had written the signatures.  You refused to give a specimen of handwriting so that your handwriting could be tested.  So all those things led to delay and if this prosecution has been hanging over you for a long time it is, regrettably, down to you.  

11.      We have read carefully the background report and listened to everything your counsel has said.  Nonetheless, we think that the conclusions of the Crown are right, and therefore we are going to sentence you to 2 years' and 9 months' imprisonment.  

Authorities

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

Attorney General -v- Loyer [2008] JRC 064.

Attorney General -v- Shore [2010] JRC 064.

Attorney General -v- Barnett-Roberts [2013] JRC 042B.