AG v Hill [2000] JRC 13 (25 January 2000)

AG v Hill [2000] JRC 13 (25 January 2000)

Restitution by a third party may be considered as mitigation depending on the circumstances, but in this case, despite family restitution, the deliberate nature of the fraud necessitated a custodial sentence.

Citation
[2000] JRC 13
Parties
Defendant: Hill; Prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
conviction and custodial sentence
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Mitigation, Restitution, Role of Attorney General
Criminal Law Sentencing Mitigation Restitution Role of Attorney General

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hill

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restitution by a third party can be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing
  2. 2 The proper functions of the Attorney General in criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Restitution by a third party may be considered as mitigation depending on the circumstances, but in this case, despite family restitution, the deliberate nature of the fraud necessitated a custodial sentence.

Court Disposition

conviction and custodial sentence

Orders

  • 6 months' imprisonment on count 1
  • 6 months' imprisonment on count 2, concurrent