BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/214 - Young v AG [1998] UR 214 (28 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/214.html Cite as: [1998] UR 214 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
Royal Court (Superior Number),
exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it
by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961
28 October 1998
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Myles, Le Ruez, Potter, Querée and Bullen.
Frances Mary Young (née Cory)
-v-
AG
Appeal against a total sentence of 13 months imprisonment passed on 31 July 1998 [1998.164], by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:
1 count ofobtaining credit, whilst in ownership of property declared en désastre, contrary to Article 25(1) of the Bankruptcy (Désastre)(Jersey) Law, 1990 (count 1), on which count a sentence of 1 month imprisonment was passed;
1 count offalsification of accounts (count 2), on which count a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (consecutive) was passed.
1 count ofembezzlement (count 3), on which count a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (concurrent) was passed.
Leave to appeal was granted by the Bailiff on 14 August1998
Advocate C M Fogarty for the Appellant
A J N Dessain Esq., Crown Advocate
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: This is an appeal by leave of a single judge by Frances Mary Young against a total sentence of 13 months imprisonment imposed for offences under the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law, 1990 and of falsification of accounts and embezzlement.
The brief background of the offences is that the appellant was employed to manage a shop and did so over a period of some thirteen months. During that time she took advantage of her position to falsify records in the business by omitting cash transactions from the invoice books and embezzled sums of cash received by her in relation to the business which she was conducting.
The principal argument put forward by Counsel for the appellant related to the observations made by Mr Ian Berry, consultant psychologist, in a report submitted for the benefit of this Court but which was not before the Inferior Number. That report indicated a lack of numerical ability and limited capacity on the part of the appellant which in the submission of Counsel might well have influenced the judgment at which the Inferior Number arrived. On the other hand the Crown Advocate reminded us that the appellant appeared well able to draw up the books of the business and there seems no question but that she knew precisely what she was doing.
The Court has given anxious consideration, naturally, to the submissions made by Counsel on the appellants behalf. At the end of the day, however, this was a fraud which continued for nearly a year and amounted to the systematic plundering of her employers funds to the extent of some £15,000. The appellant has expressed no remorse for her actions. It is true that she is a first offender and that she is now aged 61. In our judgment these matters were all taken into consideration in the Crowns conclusions and in the sentence imposed in the Court below. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Authorities
A G -v- Picot (29 May 1990) Jersey Unreported
