Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Stainforth [2015] JRC 150 (06 July 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Custodial sentence is mandatory for breach of trust involving theft where no exceptional circumstances exist; mitigation factors do not justify departure from this policy.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 15 months' imprisonment for larceny
  • 3 months' imprisonment for drug importation, consecutive
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Defendant

Accused Counsel: Grace

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount Stolen: GBP 6,379
  • Number of Tablets Imported: 524
  • Larceny Sentence: months 15
  • Drug Importation Sentence: months 3
  • Total Sentence: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Advocate Grace argued mitigation, including initial altruistic friendship, guilty plea, good character, good work record, low risk of reoffending, impact on family, and repayment of money by loan from defendant's father.
Respondent
The prosecution argued that offences involving breach of trust require custodial sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist, and none were found in this case.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court policy, cited authorities

    Custodial sentence is inevitable for breach of trust offences involving theft unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  2. 02

    Court policy

    Mitigation factors considered but do not outweigh need for custodial sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Custodial sentence is mandatory for breach of trust involving theft where no exceptional circumstances exist; mitigation factors do not justify departure from this policy.

Obiter and limits

  • Court hopes defendant will be able to begin afresh after sentence.
  • Acknowledgement of defendant's good character and low risk of reoffending.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 15 months' imprisonment for larceny
  • 3 months' imprisonment for drug importation, consecutive
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

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

[2015] JRC 150

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. You are to be sentenced for a mean and despicable offence which involved a serious breach of trust. You befriended the 58 year old victim who suffered from multiple sclerosis and she trusted you to the extent that she gave you the keys to her flat, she gave you her bank card and its pin number so that you could pay in cheques and withdraw cash on her behalf. And when her condition worsened so that she moved to Overdale, you began stealing from her account and, as we have heard, over two months, in February and March of last year, you spent some £6,379 of her money on yourself, taking all her savings and some of her social security payments. You only stopped when her account was empty so there was nothing more to be taken. At about this time you also imported 524 tablets of the Class C drug Etizolam.

2. Advocate Grace has put forward the mitigation and there is much to be said on your behalf. We accept, as she says, that this started as a friendship with altruistic purposes on your part, you were helping her out. You have pleaded guilty, although this took a while and you denied matters initially. We do not consider that delay is a relevant factor here; if you had admitted the offences when you should have, the delay would not have occurred. We accept that you are, of course, of good character and that this is a matter which is wholly out of character; we acknowledge your good work record and we have read the reference from your employer; the probation report says you are at low risk of reoffending; we acknowledge the impact this will have, not only on you but also on your family, and we also note that the money has been repaid by means of a loan from your father.

3. All of this goes to your credit but the Court's policy is clear in relation to these sorts of matters. For offences involving a breach of trust where money is taken as a result, a custodial sentence is inevitable unless there are exceptional circumstances. We cannot find that there are exceptional circumstances here, so it must be a custodial sentence. We have considered the length and we take into account your prospects and we hope very much that when you come out you will be able to put this behind you and begin afresh. But we think the Crown's conclusions make all the allowances that there are for mitigation.

4. The sentence of the Court for the larceny count is 15 months' imprisonment and on the drugs importation; 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment.

5. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities AG v Huchet [2013] JRC 002 . AG-v-Ogilvie 1998/110. AG v Ogilvie [2014] JRC 013 . AG v Loyer [2008] JRC 064 . Page Childs & Keane v AG [2012] JRC 131 . AG v McIntyre [2012] JRC 144 . AG v Burt [2013] JRC 053 . AG v Connor [2013] JRC 012 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

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.

AG v Huchet [2013] JRC 002

Case cited

AG-v-Ogilvie 1998/110

Case cited

AG v Ogilvie [2014] JRC 013

Case cited

AG v Loyer [2008] JRC 064

Case cited

Childs & Keane v AG [2012] JRC 131

Case cited

AG v McIntyre [2012] JRC 144

Case cited

AG v Burt [2013] JRC 053

Case cited

AG v Connor [2013] JRC 012

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.