Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Fraud

[2022]JRC198

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 September 2022

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Crill and Christensen

The Attorney General

-v-

Shannon Stephanie Bellas

Amanda Joan Louis

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

Shannon Stephanie Bellas

1 count of:

Fraud (Count 1).

Age:  26. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Over a period of 20 months, the Defendants, who are mother and daughter fraudulently obtained money from an elderly gentleman in his 80s, on the false pretence that they would repay him the money.

 

Louis met the Victim 20 years prior to the offending whilst he lived in Jersey and they became friends.  Bellas met the Victim on a couple of occasions, through her mother.  The Victim moved to England in 2018 but kept in contact with the Defendants.  Over time, the Defendants started requesting money from the Victim.  Whilst the Defendants were not necessarily working together to defraud the Victim, they used the same tactics to obtain the money.  They would make up fake emergencies and reasons for the urgent requests.  The Victim explained that he was struggling with his pension, but they continued to make the requests and the Victim appeared unable to refuse.

 

Bellas told the Victim she needed money for football trials, rent, medical expenses, amongst other elaborate stories.  Each story was a lie.  On one occasion she sent the Victim 22 messages in relation to one request for £80.  Bellas was particularly deceitful when she requested money for rent and provided bank details purportedly for her landlord, when in fact it was her own account and the money was never provided to her landlord.

 

Louis told the Victim she needed money for a new business, bills, flights and rent.  If the Victim did not respond quickly, she would send follow up messages asking for a response, sometimes less than ten minutes after the initial request.  She would draft contracts certifying that she would repay the money.  When the Victim visited Jersey, he noticed the alleged new business, which he provided hundreds of pounds towards, was boarded up.  When he questioned Louis on this, she said the shop needed repairs so was closed temporarily when in fact she had never started the business.

 

Between March 2019 and November 2020, Bellas received £11,317 over 103 payments and Louis received £6,127 over 43 payments.

 

Bellas made full admissions in interview.  Louis initially denied being dishonest and claimed her daughter had used her phone to send some of the messages to the Victim.  When shown her bank accounts, she admitted that she had lied.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, remorse although there remains an element of victim blaming, repayments made, good character. 

Previous Convictions:

Motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

18 months' imprisonment.

Compensation order sought in the sum of £11,067, taking into consideration repayments made by the Defendant, with a default sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. 

Amanda Joan Louis

1 count of:

Fraud (Count 1).

Age:  53. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Louis above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, remorse although there remains an element of victim blaming, repayments made. 

Previous Convictions:

Fraud, obtaining goods by false pretences, receiving stolen good, motoring and public order offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 months' imprisonment.

Compensation order sought in the sum of £5,677, taking into consideration repayments made by the Defendant, with a default sentence of 4 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Shannon Stephanie Bellas

Count 1:

240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment.

Compensation order made in the sum of £11,067, to be paid in the sum of £400 per month with a default sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. 

Amanda Joan Louis

Count 1:

240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment.

Compensation order made in the sum of £5,677, to be paid in the sum of £350 per month with a default sentence of 4 months' imprisonment. 

S. Crowder Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. B. R. Mière for Defendant Bellas.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for Defendant Louis.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The Defendants, who are mother and daughter and who live together, have pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining £6,127 in the case of Louis, the mother, who is aged 53, and £11, 317 in the case of Bellas, the daughter, who is aged 26, from the Victim, who is aged 82.  The Victim, a pensioner was a friend of the Defendants who had moved to England.  Over time the Defendants started requesting to borrow money from him which they had no intention to repay, putting forward reasons which they admit were dishonest or untrue. 

2.        Between March 2019 and November 2020 they received a total of 146 payments from the Victim after persistent requests.  Bellas received 103 payments and Louis 43.  Bellas was particularly deceitful creating multiple misleading reasons as to why she needed funds including the creation of false bank accounts.  There was a level of harassment with Bellas sending the Victim 22 messages in one day over a request for £80.  The duration of the offences demonstrates a significant level of planning and consideration.  The financial impact on the Victim has been considerable and he now has very little savings and only a small pension. 

3.        Both Defendants have pleaded guilty.  Louis has previous convictions in 2005 and 2006 for credit card fraud and is assessed at a medium risk of reoffending.  Bellas has no previous convictions and is assessed at a low risk of reconviction.

4.        The Crown have referred us to the questions set out in the case of R v Barrick [1985] 7 Cr. App. R. (S.) 142 in order to gauge the seriousness of the offences.  We agree that there was a degree of trust by the Victim in the Defendants as friends, albeit limited and we take into account his age.  He provided the money on the basis that they as friends would repay him and he trusted that they would do so.  The money was used for day to day living and Louis used some of it for a holiday.  We have already mentioned the impact on the Victim.  There has been no effect on the public or public confidence or in the Victim's colleagues or partners. 

5.        The Defendants have demonstrated remorse for their actions, but they both continue to place an element of blame on the Victim.  The Crown accepts that this is not a typical breach of trust case, but the Victim trusted the Defendants and saw them as friends and he would not have provided the money had he not trusted that they would repay him.  Accordingly the Crown submit that the following principles set out in Whelan's Aspects of Sentencing, Third Edition still apply:

"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."

The Crown is unable to identify matters of personal mitigation which are special to either Defendant, in terms of for example illness, and submit that there are no exceptional factors justifying a departure from the Court's strict policy in cases of this kind and the Crown moves for a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for Louis and 18 months for Bellas. 

6.        The Crown also invites the Court to make compensation orders in favour of the Victim of £11,067 in the case of Bellas, taking into account repayments of £250, with a default sentence of 6 months' imprisonment consecutive, and of £5,677 in the case of Louis, taking into account repayments of £450 with a default sentence of 4 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

7.        Under Article 3(1) of the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994 the Court can allow time for payment or direct payments in instalments and under Article 3(5) in determining whether to make an order and if so the amount, the Court must have regard to the Defendant's means in so far as they appear or are made known to the Court.  Under Article 7 there is provision for the review of compensation orders if a Defendant has suffered a substantial reduction in her means which was unexpected and that the Defendant's means are unlikely to increase for a substantial period of time.

8.        In terms of mitigation, counsel agree that neither Defendant has sufficient mitigation to amount to exceptional circumstances but they have both pleaded guilty and they have expressed remorse and have apologised.  We have taken everything put forward by both counsel on their respective behaves. 

9.        In this case Louis has employment and Bellas has secured employment starting this Monday.  They have both indicated to us a determination to repay to the Victim the monies that they have obtained from him, and indeed as you have seen, they have already started to make repayments.  If we impose a sentence of imprisonment that employment will be lost and we doubt that we could then impose a Compensation Order as we could not be satisfied that they would have the means to repay the Victim in the circumstances that would be prevailing after they have left prison.  This is not, as the Crown has said a typical case and we are therefore going to put the interests of the Victim first in imposing Community Service Orders on the Defendants as a direct alternative to imprisonment, together with Compensation Orders that will require the Defendants to repay the Victim under penalty of a default prison sentence. 

10.      We also take the view that the sentence for these Defendants should be the same; they live together and there is evidence of liaison between them.  Bellas has obtained the greater amount, that his true, but at the same time Louis has a prior record for fraud and we are therefore going to impose the following sentences.

11.      Bellas, taking you first we sentence you to 240 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment.

12.      Louis, we sentence you to 240 hours' Community Service which again is the equivalent of 18 months' imprisonment. 

13.      In terms of the Compensation Orders requested we are going to make those.  Bellas will pay to the Victim £11,067 at a rate of £400 per month and there will be 6 months' imprisonment in default.  Louis will pay to the Victim £5,677 at a rate of £350 per month and there will be 4 months' imprisonment in default.

Authorities

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

Whelan's Aspects of Sentencing, Third Edition. 

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994. 

AG v Picot 1990/074.