AG -v- Self [2010] JRC 022 (22 January 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] JRC 022
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction by Jury
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction by Jury
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Given the premeditated and sophisticated nature of the offences, breach of trust, prior convictions, and absence of mitigating factors, the appropriate sentence is 3 years' imprisonment for each dishonesty count, with concurrent sentences and additional disqualifications.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 3 years' imprisonment on each dishonesty count, concurrent
- 1 month's imprisonment on Count 10, concurrent
- disqualified from holding a driving licence for 2 years
- disqualified as a director for 7 years under Article 78 of Companies (Jersey) Law 1991
- ordered to pay up to £30,000 towards prosecution costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Self
DefendantCrown
Prosecution Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Prosecution Costs Ordered: GBP 30,000
- Driving Disqualification Period (years): 2
- Director Disqualification Period (years): 7
- Imprisonment (years): 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Conviction by Jury
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for multiple counts of forgery and obtaining by false pretences
- 02
application of mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing
- 03
application of director disqualification and driving disqualification
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defence counsel accepted 3 years' imprisonment as the proper starting point but argued that delay justified a reduction in sentence.
- Respondent
- Crown Advocate argued there were no mitigating factors to justify any reduction from the starting point.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R v Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142
Sentencing for dishonesty offences should reflect premeditation, sophistication, breach of trust, and prior convictions.
- 02
Companies (Jersey) Law 1991
Director disqualification for offences of dishonesty is mandated under Article 78.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the premeditated and sophisticated nature of the offences, breach of trust, prior convictions, and absence of mitigating factors, the appropriate sentence is 3 years' imprisonment for each dishonesty count, with concurrent sentences and additional disqualifications.
Obiter and limits
- Delay in proceedings was caused by the defendant's failure to admit dishonesty at the outset.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 3 years' imprisonment on each dishonesty count, concurrent
- 1 month's imprisonment on Count 10, concurrent
- disqualified from holding a driving licence for 2 years
- disqualified as a director for 7 years under Article 78 of Companies (Jersey) Law 1991
- ordered to pay up to £30,000 towards prosecution costs
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. Self is to be sentenced on 5 counts of forgery and 1 count of obtaining by false pretences, of which offences he was convicted by verdict of the Jury after a trial. The total amount of money involved was many tens of thousands of pounds. There was an element of breach of trust in so far as his business partner was concerned and the offences were committed over a period of 12 months.
2. We have taken into account the other factors mentioned in R-v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142. This was a pre-meditated and relatively sophisticated series of offences which required expert evidence to be given at trial. The defendant has previous convictions for similar offences.
3. Defence counsel accepted that 3 years' imprisonment was the proper starting point. We were not impressed by the argument that there had been delay which justified the view that there should be some reduction in sentence. Self now admits that he acted dishonestly. If he had admitted that at the start there would have been no delay at all. The Defendant has expressed some regret but we agree with the Crown Advocate that there are no mitigating factors which justify any reduction in sentence from the starting point.
4. The conclusions are therefore granted in so far as the offences of dishonesty are concerned and you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment on each of those Counts. We also impose a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment on the offence of Count 10 but applying the totality factor, we will make that concurrent with the other sentences.
5. You are disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of 2 years and you are also disqualified as a director for a period of 7 years pursuant to Article 78 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 .
6. I order you to pay a sum not exceeding £30,000 towards the costs of the Prosecution. Authorities Companies (Jersey) Law 1991. Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Governo -v-AG [1987-88] JLR N 21a. AG-v-Barnes [2002] JLR N 13. AG-v-Nelson 2002/199. AG-v-Speck [2004] JRC 100 . AG-v-Cardoso [2009] JRC 044 . R-v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 142. AG-v- Mahe [2000] JLR N 47a and b. Sinclair-v-AG [1995] JLR N 28d. Cooper-v-AG [2001] JLR N 2. Izodia Plc-v-RBSI [2006] JLR 346 . 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.