AG -v- Jones [2015] JRC 105 (15 May 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] JRC 105
- 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 the general rule that breach of trust offences attract custodial sentences, the cumulative mitigation in this case—early guilty plea, full repayment, remorse, cooperation, and strong support—amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence.
Court disposition
non-custodial sentence imposed
Orders
- 160 hours of Community Service imposed, equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment
02
Material facts
Parties
Miss Jones
DefendantThe Crown
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Total Amount Stolen: GBP 5,191.8
- Community Service Hours: 160
- Equivalent Imprisonment Months: 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for theft by employee in breach of trust
- 02
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to avoid custodial sentence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Miss Jones relied on her early guilty plea, unblemished record, full repayment of stolen funds, remorse, cooperation, and strong character references as mitigation.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued that breach of trust offences are generally punished by custodial sentences, referencing R-v-Barrick and similar authorities.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R-v-Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142
Breach of trust offences are punished by custodial sentences except in exceptional circumstances.
- 02
General sentencing principles
Mitigating factors such as early guilty plea, repayment, and remorse may be considered in sentencing.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Despite the general rule that breach of trust offences attract custodial sentences, the cumulative mitigation in this case—early guilty plea, full repayment, remorse, cooperation, and strong support—amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence.
Obiter and limits
- Such mitigating factors are often present in these cases, but the court must consider whether cumulatively they amount to exceptional circumstances.
- The defendant's efforts to rebuild her life and honesty with her new employer were significant.
Court disposition
non-custodial sentence imposed
- 160 hours of Community Service imposed, equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment
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 DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Miss Jones, over a period of some 8 months, whilst in a position of trust and responsibility, you stole from your employer on approximately 60 occasions by means of fictitious repayments and gift certificates in the total sum of £5,191.80. You used this money for living expenses and for luxury items such as clothing.
2. The Crown has referred us to the case of R-v-Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142 which we have considered and we agree with the Crown's characterisation of the offending against those factors.
3. You have substantial mitigation available to you. You pleaded guilty at a very early opportunity. You have an unblemished record and all, and indeed more, of the money that you have taken has been repaid. This, to us, indicates a very real and tangible remorse and we recognise the consequences that this offending has had on you.
4. However, the Court has observed on a number of occasions such factors are often present in cases such as this and the Court has also, on many occasions, repeated its policy that breach of trust offences such as this is, are punished by custodial sentences in all but exceptional circumstances. Now the Court understands that you were at a low ebb at the time of offending as a result of the end of your long-term relationship and the Court is mindful of the glowing tributes from your family and friends which we have read most carefully and which speak very well of your character.
5. The Court has, as it should in these circumstances, considered this matter in the round. It is entitled to look at all of the factors in this case and determine whether cumulatively they amount to exceptional circumstances. We note, as we have already said, that you have repaid more than was due, that you were entirely cooperative and that you have exceptionally strong support around you but, importantly from the Court's point of view, we note that you have put your life back together, that you have a new employer with whom you have now been frank and that that employer has provided a reference for you itself speaks well of you.
6. Taken in the round and as an act of mercy the Court will not impose a custodial sentence on you. You are sentenced to 160 hours' of Community Service, which is the equivalent of 10 months' imprisonment. Please do not be here again. Authorities R-v-Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142. AG v Kirkland 2001/200. AG v Zielinski [2008] JRC 028 . AG v Pallot [2010] JRC 122 . AG v Mumot [2010] JRC 078 . AG v Oliveira [2012] JRC 018 . AG v Hamon [2013] JRC 102 . Page Last Updated: 24 Jan 2018 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.