AG -v- Dauny [2010] JRC 141 (30 July 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] JRC 141
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Despite mitigating factors, offences involving breach of trust require a custodial sentence; the mitigating factors justify a reduction in sentence length but do not warrant a non-custodial sentence.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
Orders
- Defendant sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, concurrently on each count.
02
Material facts
Parties
Miss Dauny
Defendant Counsel: counsel for the defendantAttorney General
ProsecutorBusinessman (victim)
VictimAmounts and remedies
- Amount Stolen: GBP 19,000
- Prison Sentence (months): 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for theft involving breach of trust
- 02
Consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, experienced a long delay between offence and sentencing, has a diagnosis of compulsive buying disorder, and has significant family circumstances including pregnancy and a young child. These factors should mitigate the sentence.
- Respondent
- Offences involved a serious breach of trust, were particularly mean, and had a serious effect on the victim. Custodial sentence is almost invariably required for such offences.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court precedent
Offences involving breach of trust almost invariably attract a custodial sentence.
- 02
Court judgment
Mitigating factors such as delay, remorse, psychological condition, and family circumstances may reduce but not eliminate custodial sentence unless exceptional circumstances exist.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Despite mitigating factors, offences involving breach of trust require a custodial sentence; the mitigating factors justify a reduction in sentence length but do not warrant a non-custodial sentence.
Obiter and limits
- The offences were particularly mean and had a very serious effect on the victim.
- The defendant's family circumstances and psychological report were carefully considered.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
- Defendant sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, concurrently on each count.
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. This is a difficult case but, as the Court has stated on many occasions, offences involving a breach of trust of this kind almost invariably attract a custodial sentence. The offences in this case were particularly mean and had a very serious effect upon the businessman from whom the defendant stole and whom she deceived over a period of seven months. The amount involved was of the order of £19,000 although some of that loss has been transferred to the bank. The defendant has a previous conviction for theft from an employer for which a Community Service Order was imposed.
2. The Court has heard a very eloquent plea from counsel for the defendant who has said everything that could possibly be said on her behalf. The defendant has pleaded guilty and has expressed remorse for her actions. The length of time between the commission of the offences and sentence is considerable and we are going to take that very much into account.
3. We have considered carefully the report of the chartered psychologist and his diagnosis of compulsive buying disorder; we have also considered the fact that after her interview by the police, the defendant became pregnant and now has a child aged ten months. We also take into account of the fact that she is now again pregnant and that the baby is due in about seven months' time. These factors do not, in our judgement, amount to exceptional circumstances calling for a non-custodial sentence.
4. Miss Dauny, you knew what you were doing and you very honestly said that it was all too easy but you caused considerable damage to your victim and to his family and the Court, regrettably, has no alternative but to impose a prison sentence.
5. We are going to reduce the conclusions only because of the long delay between the commission of the offences and today, which was not entirely of your making, your family circumstances, which we understand, and the contents of the psychological report.
6. The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 12 months, concurrently on each Count. Authorities Kirkland-v-AG [2001] JCA 200 . AG-v-Harris [2004] JRC 020 . AG-v-Congdon [2001] JRC 231 . AG-v-Pallot [2010] JRC 122 . Page Last Updated: 02 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.