AG -v- Stainforth [2015] JRC 150 (06 July 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] JRC 150
- 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
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
ProsecutorDefendant
Accused Counsel: GraceAmounts 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
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
whether custodial sentence is required for breach of trust involving theft
- 02
appropriate sentence for importation of Class C drugs
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
Legal principles
- 01
Court policy, cited authorities
Custodial sentence is inevitable for breach of trust offences involving theft unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.