1999/205 - AG v Smithson [1999] UR 205 (3 December 1999)

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!

The defendant approached Equipment Rental for a loan in the sum of £8,000 for the purpose of purchasing a speed boat. He forged the signature of the owner of the boat on a sales invoice. The defendant already had two loans with Equipment Rental which were not causing the company any concern. A conditional sale agreement was entered into and a standing order drawn up on the defendant’s bank account. A cheque for the sum of £8,000 was made payable to the purported vendor and cashed. It was not clear how this was achieved and on the date of sentencing inquiries were still continuing regarding the involvement or otherwise of the alleged vendor. The funds were applied not towards the purchase of the boat but on refurbishing a public house in Wales which the defendant had taken on lease. The company became concerned when payments for December and January were in default. It was ascertained that the two existing loans had received over-payments. The defendant’s sister contacted the company authorising the transfer of the overpayments to the loan account in respect of the boat. The account went into arrears again in May 1999. Upon inquiry the company became aware that the defendant had left the Island to seek employment in the United Kingdom. A company employee therefore posted notices on the boat stating that it was the property of the company and not to be removed. The owner of the boat later returned from holiday and found the notices on the boat. He attended the company’s offices to find out what was happening and hence the offence came to light. When interviewed, the defendant gave a full and frank account of how he obtained the money. He admitted he had not applied the funds to purchase the boat and he had never owned it. He said he always intended to repay the loan in full and did not realise what he had done was a criminal offence, providing repayment was made.

Defence counsel said that when the defendant was a teenager and suffered the loss of his grandparents he was caused great distress and there was a spree of offending between 1979 and 1984. In 1995 he was trying to overcome a drink problem and had committed public order offences in Jersey in respect of which he had been sentenced to 60 hours community service. He had apparently completed all the hours in 1½ weeks and had attended the Drug and Alcohol Group, been given early discharge having completed the course to the satisfaction of the probation officer. Several references were handed up. Apparently the defendant had repaid about £2,000 of the money loaned. Just prior to committing the offence, the defendant had suffered a distressing year. He had been the victim of a grave and criminal assault, a business partner had been found stealing from the business, and his common law wife suffered post natal depression following the birth of their son. He was presently employed in Wales earning £500 per week as a painter/decorator on a five year contract. He expressed extreme remorse. His common law wife needed his income and emotional support and if he were imprisoned, the debts would escalate. The pub had been sold. Offences at the lower end of the scale.

Several between 1979 and 1985 - public order, theft, and motoring. Four between 1995 and 1998 - drunk and disorderly, and common assault which was met with one year’s probation and 60 hours community service.

The background of the facts of this case are most unusual. We have an intelligent man with overwhelming financial pressures. Exceptional references. Offence is clearly out of character. In normal circumstances imprisonment. Background leads Court to conclude imprisonment inappropriate. One year probation coupled with 120 hours community service carried out in Gwent organised by Jersey Probation Service. The Court leaves it to the defendant’s conscience as to how and when the money will be repaid.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The background facts to this case are most unusual. We have an intelligent man under an overwhelming financial pressure.

The exceptional references clearly show that his actions were out of character. The plan that he put forward was criminal and in normal circumstances would have merited a short term of imprisonment. The cases cited to us serve only to show that there are an infinite number of reasons why people try to obtain money by false pretences, and the background to this case leads us to the clear conclusion that nothing is gained by sending the accused to prison.

We are going to sentence him to one year probation, with 120 hours Community Service. The probation will be carried out in Gwent, and that is going to be organised by the Jersey Probation Service, and we leave it to the accused and to his conscience as to how he will repay the money that he obtained.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/205 - AG v Smithson [1999] UR 205 (3 December 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/205.html Cite as: [1999] UR 205

Jersey Unreported Judgments