AG v Coke Wallis [2003] JRC 187 (22 October 2003)

AG v Coke Wallis [2003] JRC 187 (22 October 2003)

The deliberate and planned breach of a regulatory direction by the defendants would ordinarily attract a custodial sentence, but significant personal mitigation justified the imposition of fines instead.

Citation
[2003] JRC 187
Parties
Defendant: Piers Coke-Wallis; Defendant: Natalie Coke-Wallis; Prosecution: Jersey Financial Services Commission
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
conviction and fines imposed
Legal Topics
Failure to Comply With Regulatory Direction, Sentencing, Mitigation, Costs
Financial Regulation Criminal Law Failure to Comply With Regulatory Direction Sentencing Mitigation Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piers Coke-Wallis

Defendant

Natalie Coke-Wallis

Defendant

Jersey Financial Services Commission

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants failed to comply with a direction issued by the Jersey Financial Services Commission
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for deliberate breach of regulatory direction

Ratio Decidendi

The deliberate and planned breach of a regulatory direction by the defendants would ordinarily attract a custodial sentence, but significant personal mitigation justified the imposition of fines instead.

Court Disposition

conviction and fines imposed

Orders

  • Each defendant to pay a fine of £7,500, with six months' imprisonment in default of payment.
  • Defendants to pay £15,000 in prosecution costs jointly and severally.