The Attorney General v Sandra Pereira Fernandes

Inferior Number Sentencing - Fraud [2018]JRC163 Royal Court (Samedi) 7 September 2018 Before : T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Pitman The Attorney General -v- Sandra Pereira Fernandes Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges: 3 counts of: Fraud (Counts 2, 3 and 4). Age: 24. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: On 17th and 18th April, 2017, Victim 1 contacted the States of Jersey Police to report that her two NatWest Bank debit cards had been used to make a significant number of purchases on the Amazon website without her knowledge or consent. The police obtained evidence from Amazon relating to the customer account through which the transactions were made. The billing address, delivery address and contact details were all associated to the Defendant. It was established that a total of 116 fraudulent transactions were made using one of Victim 1’s debit cards (to a total value of £1,768.78) and 19 fraudulent transactions on the other debit card (to a total of £129.77). The total spend was therefore £1,898.55. The transactions took place between 23rd March and 13th April, 2017. The Defendant initially denied using Victim 1’s debit cards to make the fraudulent purchases. She admitted to knowing Victim 1, and had been to social gatherings at her home on a number of occasions. When the evidence from

Amazon was put to her, the Defendant admitted taking photographs of the debit cards whilst at Victim 1’s house, and using the card details to purchase items online. The Defendant’s mobile phone was seized, and a small piece of paper with a handwritten note was located in the mobile phone case. The note contained details of a debit card belonging to Victim 2, a 93 year old man. Victim 2 confirmed that he had not given the Defendant permission to use his bank card. The Defendant and her family had previously been a lodger at his home, and she would visit her parents who still lived there. She had full access to his property. Between 1st August, 2016, and 15th May, 2017, Victim 2’s debit card was used to make 1,081 purchases on Amazon, with a total spend of £13,559.94. His card was also used to purchase £180.00 of mobile phone credit and £206.14 was spent on goods from other online retailers. Victim 2 knew nothing about the transactions. He did not own a computer and had never bought anything online. On 7th March, 2018, Victim 2 cancelled his debit card because it was damaged and unusable. A replacement card was issued to him. The Defendant obtained the new card details and made a number of further purchases on Amazon using Victim 2’s money. Details of Mitigation: Guilty plea, remorse, good references, post-natal depression, good character, cooperation with police Previous

Convictions: No previous convictions Conclusions: Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment. Count 3: 8 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 4: 21 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 21 months’ imprisonment. Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £15,844.63. Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £12, 746.71. Sentence and Observations of Court: The Court could not find any exceptional circumstance in the case to justify departing from the Court’s policy of imposing a custodial sentence where there has been a breach of trust. However, a reduction in the Crown’s conclusions was made due to the significant mitigation in the case. Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment. Count 3: 8 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 4: 16 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 16 months’ imprisonment. Declaration of benefit made in the sum of £15,844.63. Confiscation Order made in the sum of £12, 746.71. M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate. Advocate J. J. McCormick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced for three counts of fraud. In total you defrauded Victim 1 using her debit cards on some 135 occasions to a value of £1,898.55. You had photographed her debit cards on your mobile phone. That was a deliberate act to secure the information. You also obtained details of the debit card of Victim 2, a 93 year old man who had been a friend of your family for some years and with whom members of your family resided. You had unfettered access to his property and you used his cards, one of which you replaced when the original became unusable and made purchases, 1,081 of them, to a value of £13,559.94.

2. You initially denied any wrong doing and then you subsequently admitted some wrong doing although not fully until the evidence was put before you. This offending involved a substantial breach of trust and you have heard that the policy of the court is, save in exceptional circumstances, to deal with this type of offending with a sentence of imprisonment.

3. We have of course, heard and considered very carefully the mitigation available to you. We have read the references which speak well of you and we accept that you are genuinely remorseful. We have of course, had regard as requested to the Social Enquiry Report and the Psychological Report which speaks about your depression. You have a good work ethic and you do not present a significant risk of reoffending and you have no previous convictions.

4. We deal first with the Attorney General’s statement with which you do not have any issue and we declare that you have benefitted to the extent of £15,844.63, and we make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £12,746.71.

5. We turn now to the question of sentence. We are not blind to the effect that a sentence of imprisonment might have on your wider family and in particular on your daughter. But as the Crown has mentioned and as we report, that was a matter that you should have thought about when you committed these offences, and it is your responsibility.

6. We ask ourselves whether in the light of the mitigation that we have made reference to, we can find exceptional circumstances to permit us to depart from the Court’s sentencing policy. It is not without regret that we conclude that we cannot. Accordingly, in our view, this offending must be met with a sentence of imprisonment. However, in our view we can allow significantly more than the Crown has allowed by way of mitigation and accordingly our sentence is; Count 2; 12 months’ imprisonment; Count 3; 8 months’ imprisonment; Count 4; 16 months imprisonment all concurrent making a total of 16 months’ imprisonment.

7. We turn to the question of deportation. We accept as the Crown has said that the first limb of the test in Comacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 has been met, however we also agree that the second part of the test has not been met and accordingly we make no recommendation for deportation at the end of your sentence. Authorities Comacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey. AG-v-Hamon 1998/104. AG-v-Bradshaw [2017] JRC 119. Ag-v-Callec [2018] JCR 056.