1998/84 - AG v Webster [1998] UR 84 (23 April 1998)

1998/84 - AG v Webster [1998] UR 84 (23 April 1998)

Consistency in sentencing for tax evasion offences requires fines and imprisonment in default, regardless of mitigation, due to the seriousness of undeclared income and dishonesty.

Citation
[1998] UR 84
Parties
Defendant: Webster; Prosecutor: Comptroller
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
conviction and sentencing
Legal Topics
Tax Evasion, Fraud, Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webster

Defendant

Comptroller

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment

  1. 1 failure to declare income
  2. 2 tax evasion
  3. 3 fraudulent and negligent omissions

Ratio Decidendi

Consistency in sentencing for tax evasion offences requires fines and imprisonment in default, regardless of mitigation, due to the seriousness of undeclared income and dishonesty.

Court Disposition

conviction and sentencing

Orders

  • Webster fined £35,000
  • Two weeks imprisonment in default of payment on each consecutive charge of the 22 counts