Jersey Judgment

AG v Appleby [2002] JRC 229 (05 December 2002)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The seriousness of the fraud and breach of trust committed by the defendant over a prolonged period necessitates a custodial sentence, notwithstanding substantial mitigation and restitution.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

Orders

  • 18 months' imprisonment on all counts, concurrent
  • 2 months' imprisonment on second indictment, concurrent
  • 3 years' disqualification from holding a driving licence
  • Compensation order in favour of Jersey Freshwater Angling Association for £1,341.00

02

Material facts

Parties

Jersey Freshwater Angling Association

Complainant

Defendant (unnamed)

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Messervy

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Amount Obtained by Fraud: GBP 45,000
  • Restitution Paid: GBP 44,000
  • Outstanding Balance Ordered as Compensation: GBP 1,341
  • Imprisonment Sentence: months 18
  • Driving Licence Disqualification: years 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant committed serious fraud and breach of trust over 4½ years, deceiving the club and its members, warranting a custodial sentence to deter similar conduct.
Respondent
Substantial mitigation exists; the defendant has made restitution, shown remorse, cooperated with police, pleaded guilty, and materially impoverished himself.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. All. R (S) 142

    Custodial sentences are appropriate for serious breaches of trust involving fraud.

  2. 02

    A. G. -v- Cooper [1999/78]; A. G. -v- Congdon [2001/231]; A. G. -v- Marsh [2002/16]; Le Monnier -v- A. G. (1989) JLR 170 CofA

    Mitigation can substantially reduce sentencing but does not obviate custodial penalty for serious offences.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The seriousness of the fraud and breach of trust committed by the defendant over a prolonged period necessitates a custodial sentence, notwithstanding substantial mitigation and restitution.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court must make it clear to others who might be tempted to breach a trust reposed in them that the likely result will be a custodial penalty.
  • We are not satisfied that there are special reasons not to disqualify from holding a driving licence.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

  • 18 months' imprisonment on all counts, concurrent
  • 2 months' imprisonment on second indictment, concurrent
  • 3 years' disqualification from holding a driving licence
  • Compensation order in favour of Jersey Freshwater Angling Association for £1,341.00

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2002] JRC 229

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. The defendant was the honorary treasurer of a club called the Jersey Freshwater Angling Association. He obtained, by fraud, over a period of some 4½ years, the sum of £45,000 from the Club by plundering its bank account. Serious deceits were involved in this offending. He obtained a second cheque book by which he was able to deceive the President and members of the Club, and he lied to members about having the accounts audited. It was, in short, a gross breach of trust committed over a substantial period.

2. The defendant has previous convictions but they were long ago. We shall ignore them and treat the defendant as a first offender. Advocate Messervy has urged upon us, quite rightly, that there is substantial mitigation in this case. Since he has been arrested by the police the defendant has sold his flat and paid the net proceeds of sale to the Association. He is making arrangements to sell a mobile home which is in France. He has made arrangements to surrender an insurance policy which will yield some £4,000. He has given the contents of his flat to Roseneath Hostel. He finds himself in his mid-forties, as counsel has said, in a position where, in material terms, he has virtually nothing left.

3. In terms of restitution to the Association of which he was a member for many years, he has paid just under £44,000 to the Association and has undertaken to repay the outstanding balance of £1,341.00, and legal costs incurred by the Association together with interest.

4. The Court accepts that the defendant has shown remorse. He has been co-operative with the police, and has pleaded guilty to the indictment and admitted the offending at the first available opportunity.

5. The Court has given very anxious consideration to the question of whether a non-custodial sentence can be imposed. We have reached the conclusion that the offence is too serious to be dealt with in that way. The Court must make it clear to others who might be tempted to breach a trust reposed in them that the likely result will be a custodial penalty. We can, however, in the light of the very substantial mitigation substantially reduce the conclusions.

6. The sentence of the Court is that on count 1 you will be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on counts 2 - 42 inclusive, to 18 months' imprisonment concurrently on each count and concurrent with count 1. On the second indictment you will be sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment again concurrent. You will be disqualified for a period of 3 years' from holding a driving licence. We are not satisfied that there are special reasons not to disqualify; but the disqualification will date from today. The total sentence is therefore one of 18 months' imprisonment. We also make a compensation order in favour of the Jersey Freshwater Angling Association in the sum of £1,341.00. Authorities Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. All. R (S) 142. A. G. -v- Cooper (7 th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/78]. A. G. -v- Congdon (16 th November, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/231]. A. G. -v- Marsh (18 th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/16]. Le Monnier -v- A. G. (1989) JLR 170 CofA. Page Last Updated: 20 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. All. R (S) 142

Case cited

A. G. -v- Cooper [1999/78]

Case cited

A. G. -v- Congdon [2001/231]

Case cited

A. G. -v- Marsh [2002/16]

Case cited

Le Monnier -v- A. G. (1989) JLR 170 CofA

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.