AG -v- Morin [2010] JRC 217D (03 December 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] JRC 217D
- 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 seriousness of the fraud, the defendant's exceptional mitigation, including disability, remorse, guilty plea, and voluntary repayment, justified a sentence of community service rather than imprisonment.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 120 hours' community service
- Compensation order for balance due, amount to be agreed, to be paid within 5 years with liberty to apply
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr Morin
DefendantSocial Security Department
VictimAmounts and remedies
- Community Service Hours: 120
- Custodial Sentence Equivalent (months): 6
- Compensation Order Period (years): 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant committed fraud by failing to declare income while receiving social security benefits
- 02
Appropriate sentence for social security fraud given mitigating circumstances
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant pleaded guilty, acknowledged guilt immediately, has disabilities, showed remorse, spent the money on family needs, and has been voluntarily repaying the overpaid benefits.
- Respondent
- The Crown sought a custodial sentence in line with the seriousness of the fraud, but accepted the mitigating factors and proposed community service and a compensation order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115
Fraud on public funds is a serious offence normally warranting a custodial sentence measured in years, not months.
- 02
Sentencing practice
Mitigating factors such as guilty plea, remorse, disability, and repayment may justify a non-custodial sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Despite the seriousness of the fraud, the defendant's exceptional mitigation, including disability, remorse, guilty plea, and voluntary repayment, justified a sentence of community service rather than imprisonment.
Obiter and limits
- The court does not adopt the sentencing tariffs discussed in R-v-Graham and Whatley, leaving them open for a future occasion.
- Many of the mitigating features might be available in other cases, but the defendant's disability is exceptional.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 120 hours' community service
- Compensation order for balance due, amount to be agreed, to be paid within 5 years with liberty to apply
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. Mr Morin, between January 2008 and November 2009 you were taking income from the Social Security Department by way of income support and on the 18 th March, 2009, you withheld material information from the Social Security Department, namely the receipt of income from your employment as a Disc Jockey at the Hotel Ambassadeur.
2. In fact the income that you were getting should have been declared from the outset. The claim was a fraudulent claim to that extent and known to be fraudulent. It is a fraud committed on the public of Jersey and you obtained, as a result, benefits which you were not entitled to obtain. It is no different in principle from other forms of fraud and in principle offences of this kind would normally call for a custodial sentence to be imposed, and that would be measured in years and not in months.
3. However, in this case the Court is not going to impose a custodial sentence and in deciding not to do so we want to say that it is really an act of compassion and an act of mercy which takes into account also the substantial amounts of mitigation which are available to you. In particular we take account of your guilty plea; your immediate acknowledgement of guilt; we take into account the disabilities that you have and your remorse; the fact in particular that the money was not used on luxury items but spent on your family, and the fact that you have voluntarily been paying back the monies which you obtained and which you should not have had. Nonetheless, you catch the Court, as I say, in a compassionate mode today because many of those features might be available in other cases and leaving aside the disability from which you suffer, which is exceptional, it is very probable that a custodial sentence would have been imposed.
4. The Crown's conclusions will be granted and 120 hours' community service is what you are sentenced to perform, which is the equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment, which would otherwise have been the custodial sentence which would have been imposed. The Court also makes a Compensation Order for the balance which is due (the amount due to be agreed between the Crown and the defence) and you will have a period of 5 years to pay that money back with liberty to apply. I have deliberately fixed a period of five years to make sure you have enough time to pay it back but it seems to the Court that you should no doubt wish to continue paying at or around the figure you are currently paying.
5. For the record the Court notes and adopts the sentencing principles which are set out in the cases of R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115 but we do not adopt the sentencing tariffs discussed in those cases which are left open for a future occasion. Authorities R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115 . AG-v-Payne 1999/220. 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.