Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Weller [2022] JRC 139 (24 June 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_139.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 139
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - false pretences - drugs - possession - Class B
|
Before : |
A. J. Olsen MBE, Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Dulake and Cornish |
The Attorney General
-v-
Shaun Michael Weller
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
|
2 counts of: |
Obtaining goods by false pretences (Count 2 and Count 5). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey), Law, 1978 (Count 9). |
Age: 35
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The Defendant stole over ten thousand pounds from his employer over a period of five months by making over one hundred unauthorised transactions on company cards and when arrested 0.54 grams of cannabis was found in his accommodation.
The Defendant was given petrol cards to be kept in the vehicle so that he could make approved fuel purchases for the company vehicle he drove. The Crown's case is that the Defendant was only authorised to buy fuel and certain other business-related items. Mr Houghton states that food, drinks, and items such as phone cards and USB cables were not authorised. The Defendant has entered pleas on the basis that only his purchase of scratch cards was unauthorised. This plea is not accepted by the Crown, but the Defendant was sentenced on his basis of plea as it is accepted that the difference between the accounts would not make a material difference to sentence.
On the Defendant's basis the Defendant made unauthorised transactions to the value of £10,757 over a period of 3 months and 20 days entirely on scratch cards, often making multiple purchases on the same day.
During a search of the Defendant's accommodation on arrest, herbal cannabis weighing 545 mg was discovered and seized
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant has the benefit of a guilty plea, but the Crown submits that the Defendant is not entitled to a full third credit given that a guilty plea was only entered after indictment and following a pre-trial hearing.
The Defendant is not of good character but does not have any similar previous convictions and the Crown has taken note of the personal mitigation set out in the reports.
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has previous convictions for offences of violence, driving offences and public order matters but none for similar offences as those which he is being sentenced for.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 5: |
2 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 9: |
No separate penalty. |
Total: 2 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 2: |
21 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 5: |
21 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 9: |
No separate penalty. |
Total: 21 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.
Advocate F. L. Pinel for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF:
1. Shaun Weller, on your own admission you defrauded your employer to the extent of £10,757 over a period of nearly 4 months.
2. You will have heard that the Crown has referred to Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing (3rd Edition) where he says this:
"Where the offence involves the violation of trust the sentencing policy of the courts has been consistently plain: such offences are punished by custodial sentences in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Taking thirty years as a sample span, a reading of the cases reveals an absolute consistency of policy about this. It is one of the sentencing principles most resolutely observed by the Courts."
This first principle was clearly stated by the Court in AG v Picot 1990/074, "A person convicted of an offence involving a criminal breach of trust will receive a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances".
3. Applying the relevant considerations set out in R v Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142, we note that your employer had entrusted you with two garage cards in order to enable you to make fuel purchasers and other purchasers for the work vehicles you were driving; the offending took place over a significant period; and your employer has had to absorb the amount of the authorised payments that in effect you stole from him in breach of the trust that he had reposed in you.
4. We note that you have an unenviable record, but also that this is your first appearance before a court for offences involving dishonesty.
5. We have heard that you stole the money from your employer in order to purchase scratch cards, and this was because of a gambling habit, but your counsel has not sought to advance that as mitigation; she sought simply to put the gambling habit into the context of the other difficulties referred to in the reports, and she was absolutely right to do so.
6. As you will have heard, the Crown is of the view that a custodial sentence is inevitable in this case, even allowing for the personal mitigation that is available to you, and has asked us to send you to prison for two years.
7. Advocate Pinel on your behalf has accepted that a custodial sentence is inevitable, but has urged upon us that the total sentence should be reduced to one of 18 months. In support of this she referred, among other things, to the delay in bringing the case on and the remorse which you have shown. We were pleased to hear that you have written to your former employer apologising for your offending, although note that there is no offer of compensation once your circumstances have improved. Advocate Pinel told us that you are ashamed of yourself. In particular she urged us to allow you full credit for your guilty plea and gave us the reasons for that.
8. We have taken all her submissions into account and in addition we have read the pre-sentencing and psychological reports with care. We have taken particular note of your tragic childhood difficulties and the bereavements to which the reports allude, and also your mental health problems, which are fully explored in the detailed report of Dr Boucher; but we propose to refer to these matters no further in open court.
9. We have also read the six letters that your advocate has provided, including your letter of remorse, although in regard to that we note with a little concern paragraph 13 of the pre-sentence report, where it is stated, "...this is more focused on [your] mental health problems rather than the impact on [your] employer and the breach of trust associated with offences of this nature."
10. In all the circumstances we are of the view that the Crown has made slightly insufficient allowance for the mitigation that is available to you and we are going to reduce the conclusions accordingly.
11. The sentences are therefore as follows: Count 2, 21 months' imprisonment, Count 5, 21 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 9, no separate penalty.
12. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the cannabis.
13. Now, Mr Weller, just because the Court has had no alternative today but to send you to prison, this does not mean we have given up on you. On the contrary, you are still a comparatively young man who has shown himself to be capable of holding down a perfectly good job. Your mother's touching letter makes it clear that you have many good points. You seem to be confronting your demons now and we applaud you for that. We hope that you will continue to take the fullest advantage of all the treatment and training that will be available to you at HMP La Moye during your time there and we certainly hope we will never see you here before us again.
Authorities
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing (3rd Edition).
AG v Picot 1990/074.
R v Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142.
AG v Oeillet and Hampton [2014] JRC 142C.
R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 73