[2003]JRC187
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
22nd October, 2003
|
Before:
|
Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, and Jurats
Le Ruez and Allo.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Piers Ross Coke-Wallis;
Natalie Elizabeth Coke-Wallis
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
to which the defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 16th September, 2003
following conviction on:
|
1 count of:
|
Failure to comply with a direction issued by
the Jersey Finance Services Commission, contrary to Article 20(9) of the
Financial Services (Jersey) Law, 1998.
|
Piers Ross Coke-Wallis
Age: 41
Details of Offence:
Breach of a direction issued by
Jersey Financial Services Commission contrary to Article 20 (9) of the
Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law
1998.
The Commission issued a number of
directions. One of these directions
was that no documentation or records should be removed from offices of
Coke-Wallis companies. Natalie
Coke-Wallis made it known that she did not intend to comply with the direction. The Commission sent a second set of
directions and warning letter. The
Coke-Wallises hatched a plan to breach the
directions. Piers Coke-Wallis gave
written instructions to his wife as to what documentation should be removed
from the office. Piers and Natalie
Coke-Wallis then were seen at the ferry terminal. Piers Coke Wallis was driving a Mercedes
motorcar containing a large quantity of documentation and computer
equipment. This was material
covered by the direction.
Amongst the records being removed
from the office were some permanent records such as letters of wishes, trust
deeds and memorandums and articles of association of companies. This was a flagrant deliberate,
well-planned breach of the Commissions’ directions. Both Coke-Wallises
elected to trial.
Natalie Coke-Wallis gave evidence and
was disbelieved. Piers Coke-Wallis
did not give evidence.
Details of Mitigation:
Good character. Natalie Coke Wallis’ elderly
mother was ill and she was the primary carer. Their business was ruined. They had no future in the finance
industry.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
12 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
£7,500 fine or 6
months’ imprisonment in default of payment.
£15,000 costs to
be paid jointly and severally by defendants
Given the importance
of the Commission in maintaining the reputation of the Island
as a finance centre of high repute, persons could normally expect to be
sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment for breach of directions. They had both come very close to
custody. However in this case the
personal mitigation allowed the Court to deal with the matter by way of fine.
Natalie Elizabeth Coke-Wallis
Age: 38
Details of Offence:
See above.
Details of Mitigation:
See above.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
12 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
£7,500 fine or 6
months’ imprisonment in default of payment.
£15,000 costs to
be paid jointly and severally by defendants
S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M.L. Preston for P.R. Coke-Wallis.
Advocate P.C. Harris for N.E. Coke-Wallis.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1.
Piers
Coke-Wallis and Natalie Coke-Wallis, each of you has been convicted after a
trial of failing to comply with a direction issued by the Jersey Financial
Services Commission. Despite your
denials the evidence was compelling.
It showed a flagrant and deliberate breach of a direction which the
Jurats expressly found had been served upon you, or rather on the second defendant,
Natalie Coke-Wallis.
2.
The
Jurats, by their verdict, found that you had jointly planned to flout that
direction and that you did so three days later. The Court bears in mind your good
characters and that this is your first offence. The Court has read all the testimonials
and the Social Enquiry Reports, and has taken into account that by virtue of
your convictions, your careers and reputations in the financial world are
ruined and that you have already suffered as a result. The Court also bears in mind the fact
that no one, apparently, has actually suffered financial loss.
3.
On the
other hand, it is important that the high reputation in which Jersey
financial institutions are regarded by the international financial business
world should be protected. The Jersey Financial Commissioners have the task of ensuring
that this reputation is maintained and this, the courts will do their best to
support.
4.
The Crown’s
conclusion is that sentences of twelve months’ imprisonment should be
imposed. You have come very close
to receiving such sentences. It is
only because of your personal mitigation that the Court feels able to accede to
your pleas that such a penalty can be avoided in this case. The Court wishes to make it clear that,
in general, a prison sentence would be appropriate for this kind of
offence. However, having listened
to Counsel, the Court feels able, though with considerable reservations, to impose
fines in lieu of prison sentences.
The sentences on each of you is that you pay a fine of £7,500 and
in default of payment, each of you will serve six months’ imprisonment.
[There followed a discussion
about costs.]
5.
The Crown
is seeking an order for payment of its costs in the sum of £15,000. You each contested the trial as you were
fully entitled to do, but the result of that was a two-day trial and it was due
to your contesting it that the Prosecution costs have largely been
incurred. The Court orders you to
pay £15,000 in costs jointly and severally to the Prosecution.
No Authorities