AG v McDermott [2020] JRC 005 (10 January 2020)

AG v McDermott [2020] JRC 005 (10 January 2020)

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse a compensation order because the evidence suggested Ace of Clubs would not sustain a loss due to PFS's commitment to repay, and the defendant had not retained the proceeds. The risk of double recovery and unjust enrichment, along with the complexity of future loss and benefit, made a compensation order inappropriate.

Citation
[2020] JRC 005
Parties
Prosecutor: Attorney General; Defendant: Mr McDermott; Victim: Ace of Clubs; Victim: Kids Club; Third Party: Professional Fulfilment Services Jersey Limited (PFS)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Sentencing, Compensation Order Application
Outcome
compensation order refused
Legal Topics
Compensation Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Double Recovery, Vicarious Liability, Unjust Enrichment
Criminal Law Restitution Charity Law Compensation Orders Proceeds of Crime Double Recovery Vicarious Liability Unjust Enrichment

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Mr McDermott

Defendant

Ace of Clubs

Victim

Kids Club

Victim

Professional Fulfilment Services Jersey Limited (PFS)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Sentencing, Compensation Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a compensation order be made against the defendant given the circumstances of loss and potential reimbursement by a third party?
  2. 2 Does the risk of double recovery or unjust enrichment preclude a compensation order?
  3. 3 Is the case too complex for a compensation order under criminal law procedures?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse a compensation order because the evidence suggested Ace of Clubs would not sustain a loss due to PFS's commitment to repay, and the defendant had not retained the proceeds. The risk of double recovery and unjust enrichment, along with the complexity of future loss and benefit, made a compensation order inappropriate.

Court Disposition

compensation order refused