AG -v- Bryce-Richards [2005] JRC 138A (04 October 2005)

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. As will have been apparent the Court has given very careful consideration to the sentence to be imposed in your case. You are 44 years old and you are of previous good character. You have been convicted by a Jury on overwhelming evidence, yet you still deny your guilt and apparently cannot, or will not, acknowledge any wrong doing.

2. In a letter put before the Court you set out a number of factors which you seem to believe justify your actions. If that is so you should have given evidence at your trial setting out your defence, but you chose not to do so. It is too late now to raise those matters before us, though we are told you intend to appeal your conviction. So far as this Court is concerned you have been found guilty by a Jury and you are to be sentenced for that offence. It was an offence of dishonesty and a breach of trust, not only in the strict legal sense, but of the trust, friendship and confidence that two elderly people reposed in you.

3. I refer to your own letter, we have also read two other letters and a Social Enquiry Report. We bear in mind all the submissions made on your behalf by Advocate Winchester. We are quite unable to accede to his suggestion that a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate.

4. You have to be punished for your dishonesty as a professional trustee, and the reputation of Jersey as a financial centre has to be protected by a sentence which will deter others minded to breach the trust reposed in them. The mitigation available to you is limited, and in our view more limited, than that suggested by the Prosecution.

5. First, your previous good character. Second, the fact that you were the ultimate beneficiary and third, that you have lost your professional career. You failed to co-operate in any way in bringing the case to trial, or in recovering the lost proceeds of your crime.

6. So what starting point should the Court adopt? We bear in mind those features which distinguish this case from others to which we have been referred. Here there was only one victim, not a series of victims and the offence was not committed over as long a period of time. In all the circumstances we consider that the appropriate starting point to adopt is 9 years. Applying to that figure the limited degree of mitigation to which I have referred we arrive at a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment and that is the sentence which the Court imposes.

7. In addition we make compensation orders as follows, in favour of Jacqueline Holmes the sum of £125,000 and to the three children of Terrance Fountain the total sum of £25,000, that is to say to each of them Amanda Marie, Alexia Michele, and Lloyd Thomas the sum of £8,333.33. We are minded to direct that that sum be paid out of any sum ordered to be confiscated. That matter we shall consider tomorrow.

8. We reserve the right to impose a sentence of imprisonment, consecutive for failing to pay the compensation order but if, as we are minded to do, we order it to be paid out of the confiscation order which we shall consider making then no such sentence will be imposed in relation to the compensation. Though no doubt we shall think it right to impose a sentence in relation to any confiscation order. Those are the sentences of the Court. Authorities AG -v- Hanley (1993) JLR N-9. AG -v- Young (1998) JLR N-16. R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R.(5) 142. AG -v- Delaney Jersey Unreported 13 th May, 1993. R -v- Clark (1998) 2 Cr. App. R. 9(s). AG -v- Nelson Jersey Unreported 18 th October 2002 2002/199. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII