Jersey Judgment

AG v Fitzsimmons

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the defendant had committed a deliberate fraud upon the Social Security fund and found no reason to depart from the Crown Advocate's proposed disposal; it therefore imposed concurrent custodial sentences totalling 9 months and a compensation order for the full amount defrauded, with 2 months' consecutive imprisonment in default of payment.

Court disposition

Guilty plea accepted; sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment in total and ordered to pay compensation of £4,797.84.

Orders

  • Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 2: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 3: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 4: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 6: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • All custodial sentences to run concurrently.
  • Compensation order of £4,797.84 in favour of the Committee of Employment and Social Security.
  • Compensation to be paid within 18 months.
  • In default of payment, 2 months' imprisonment consecutive to the substantive sentence.

02

Material facts

Parties

The Attorney General

Prosecutor Counsel: Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate

Francis Charles Fitzsimmons

Accused Counsel: Advocate R. Tremoceiro

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Counts Originally Charged: 6
  • Count Abandoned: 5
  • Age of Defendant: 46
  • Total Sum Defrauded: GBP 4,797.84
  • Sentence on Count 1: months 9
  • Sentence on Count 2: months 3
  • Sentence on Count 3: months 3
  • Sentence on Count 4: months 3
  • Sentence on Count 6: months 3
  • Total Imprisonment: months 9
  • Compensation Order: GBP 4,797.84
  • Default Imprisonment for Non Payment: months 2
  • Time to Pay Compensation: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Sentencing After Guilty Plea / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution said the defendant deliberately defrauded the Social Security fund by continuing to work while submitting medical certificates and claiming benefit, and sought sentences and compensation consistent with the Crown Advocate's conclusions.
Respondent
Defence counsel said the initial claim had been genuine, the defendant was not in financial distress, the conduct was a serious error of judgment rather than a deliberate and systematic fraud, and mitigation was offered by apologies and character references.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Judgment of the Bailiff

    A deliberate fraud on a Social Security fund may justify concurrent custodial sentences and a compensation order for the sum defrauded.

  2. 02

    Judgment of the Bailiff

    The court may impose imprisonment in default of payment of compensation, consecutive to the substantive sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the defendant had committed a deliberate fraud upon the Social Security fund and found no reason to depart from the Crown Advocate's proposed disposal; it therefore imposed concurrent custodial sentences totalling 9 months and a compensation order for the full amount defrauded, with 2 months' consecutive imprisonment in default of payment.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that defence counsel could not have said anything further on the accused's behalf.
  • The court observed that it had given very careful consideration to all matters properly raised in mitigation.

Court disposition

Guilty plea accepted; sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment in total and ordered to pay compensation of £4,797.84.

  • Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 2: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 3: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 4: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • Count 6: 3 months' imprisonment.
  • All custodial sentences to run concurrently.
  • Compensation order of £4,797.84 in favour of the Committee of Employment and Social Security.
  • Compensation to be paid within 18 months.
  • In default of payment, 2 months' imprisonment consecutive to the substantive sentence.

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

Judgment

1999/164 3 pages

ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) 1st October, 1999 Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Quérée, Allo The Attorney General -v- Francis Charles Fitzsimmons 6 counts of: obtaining money by false pretences (counts 1,2,3,4,5,6). (Count 5 abandoned) Age: 46 Plea: Guilty Details of Offence: Between July and December, 1997 the defendant submitted continuous medical certificates to Social Security and claimed sickness benefit. The first certificate related to hyper-tension and exhaustion. It was accepted by the prosecution that there may have been times during the material periods when the defendant was genuinely ill. The defendant was a taxi driver. The prosecution relied on documentation relating to account customers but had no record of cash customers. The defendant submitted medical certificates at the end of the relevant periods making it difficult to investigate whether he was working or not. In September Social Security had asked him to sign a declaration form that he was incapable of work through illness. The defendant did so but continued to work. He also submitted claims in January, 1998 (Count 2), February, 1998 (Count 3) and March, 1998 (Count 4). An attempt to obtain benefit in July/August, 1998 was thwarted by a stop being put to the cheque by Social Security (Count 6). Following police investigation and interviewing of company personnel it became clear that the

defendant was working. At interview he denied working saying that other people drove his car. None of the other drivers he named and who were interviewed corroborated his story. Total sum defrauded £4,797.84. Details of Mitigation: Fitzsimmons’ initial claim had been genuine in that medical evidence was produced to show he had a heart condition. Defence counsel conceded he was “shutting his eyes to the obvious” when signing the benefit cheques which carry clear warnings on the face of the document. Defence counsel claimed he had mad a serious error of judgment rather than a deliberate and systematic fraud. He was not in financial distress. Offered apologies to the Court and character references. Previous Convictions: 1979 - Taking and driving away. 1992 - Exceeding the speed limit. 1993 - Refusing to leave licensed premises. 1995 - Larceny from a shop of a raincoat for which he was bound over for 2 years. Conclusions: Count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment. Count 2: 3 months’ imprisonment. Count 3: 3 months’ imprisonment.. Count 4: 3 months’ imprisonment.. Count 5: abandoned.. Count 6: 3 months’ imprisonment. All concurrent Compensation Order: £4,797. 84, or 2 months’ imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive. Total: 9 months’ imprisonment. Sentence & Observations of Court: Careful consideration of all matters raised: defence counsel could not have said anything further.

However, court took the view that it was a deliberate fraud on Social Security fund and could not find anything in the case which would entitle the Court to depart from the conclusions of the Crown Advocate which appeared to be reasonable and appropriate. Conclusions granted, Compensation Order to be repaid within 18 months and in default of payment 2 months’ imprisonment consecutively. Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Accused.

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: The Court has given very careful consideration to all the matters very properly raised by Counsel for the accused, and indeed we think that nothing further could have been said on his behalf than was said. At the end of the day we take the view that this was a deliberate fraud upon the Social Security fund. We cannot find anything in the case which would entitle us to depart from the conclusions of the Crown Advocate which appear to us to be reasonable and proper. Fitzsimmons you are therefore sentenced on count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment; count 2: 3 months’ imprisonment; count 3: 3 months’ imprisonment; count 4: 3 months’ imprisonment; count 6: 3 months’ imprisonment. All those sentences to be concurrent making a total of 9 months’ imprisonment, and we make a Compensation Order in the sum of £4,797.84 in favour of the Committee of Employment and Social Security. That sum of money to be paid within 18 months and in default of payment we order that you will serve a further 2 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence otherwise imposed. Authorities A.G. -v- Halsall (9th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported. Livingstone-Stewart (1987) 9 Cr. App.R.(s) 135. A.G. -v- Burns, Armitage (20th August, 1999) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Harris (27th March, 1997) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Pritchard (20th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Laverick (11th January, 1999) Jersey Unreported. Johnson -v- A.G. (15th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported, C.of A. A.G. -v- Godwin (30th October, 1998) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Horgan (20th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Thorne (28th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Warn (26th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported. A.G. -v- Blake (18th August, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

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.

A.G. -v- Halsall (9th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

Livingstone-Stewart (1987) 9 Cr. App.R.(s) 135

Case cited

A.G. -v- Burns, Armitage (20th August, 1999) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Harris (27th March, 1997) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Pritchard (20th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Laverick (11th January, 1999) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

Johnson -v- A.G. (15th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported, C.of A.

Case cited

A.G. -v- Godwin (30th October, 1998) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Horgan (20th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Thorne (28th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Warn (26th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A.G. -v- Blake (18th August, 1995) Jersey Unreported

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.