1998/72 - AG v Wells [1998] UR 72 (3 April 1998)

1998/72 - AG v Wells [1998] UR 72 (3 April 1998)

Deliberate frauds require custodial sentences, but sentences may be reduced and compensation orders imposed to address harm to victims.

Citation
[1998] UR 72
Parties
Defendant: Wells; Prosecution: Crown; Victim: Mrs. Quémard; Victim: Mr De Freitas
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Custodial sentence imposed with compensation orders.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Public Order Offence, Sentencing, Compensation Orders
Criminal Law Fraud Public Order Offence Sentencing Compensation Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wells

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Mrs. Quémard

Victim

Mr De Freitas

Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate for deliberate frauds
  2. 2 Whether compensation orders should be imposed for the victims

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate frauds require custodial sentences, but sentences may be reduced and compensation orders imposed to address harm to victims.

Court Disposition

Custodial sentence imposed with compensation orders.

Orders

  • Two months imprisonment for public order offence (second indictment)
  • Nine months imprisonment for each of counts 3 and 4 (first indictment), concurrent with each other and with the public order offence sentence