[2009]JRC229
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
27th November 2009
Before :
|
M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats
Tibbo and King
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Ryan Jon Donachie
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
24 counts of:
|
Larceny as a servant (Counts 1 to 24).
|
Age: 21.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Between the 25th May, 2008 and 4th February, 2009,
the defendant stole £14,419.29 from his employers, Chex Ltd, making 24
fraudulent refunds to his bank account over the eight-month period.
The defendant had worked at Chex
full time since November 2007. As
the defendant was the longest serving sales assistant, he was often left in
charge when the owner and manager were on holiday or on buying trips.
In March 2009, after Donachie had
been dismissed for an unrelated matter, they noticed that they owed
£329.29 to the company which issued their PDQ
terminal, the electronic machine through which card payments and refunds are
processed. Owing money from this
terminal can only happen when the amount of refunds given out exceeded the
takings for the same day.
They reported the matter to the Police. On Tuesday 3rd March, 2009, the
defendant was arrested and said “My card went missing for a period of
time and cash appeared in my account”. Receipts relating to the debit card in
question were recovered from his flat, as well as items which had been bought
with that card.
His bank statements showed that he
had received 24 payments amounting to £14,419.29. In interview he denied knowing how to
give refunds but said his co-workers knew how it was done. He denied stealing from the business, and
said he often lent this card out to other people. He was unable to explain why he would do
this when he had so little money in his account. He was also unable to explain how or why
funds had been credited to his bank account. He said that one of his fellow workers
had borrowed his debit card and alleged that the other co-worker had lost previous
jobs through dishonesty.
He was indicted on 15th May, 2009,
and entered guilty pleas to all charges, and sentencing was set down for 19th June, 2009. On 3rd June, 2009, he told his then
lawyers that he wished to change his plea to one of not guilty. The matter was brought back before the Royal Court by
another firm. On 27th August, 2009 there
was a hearing where he sought to vacate his pleas. His affidavit makes a serious allegation
against one of his co-workers, whom he claims admitted defrauding the company
himself. This person denied
speaking to the defendant as alleged.
That court held that there were no valid grounds for allowing the pleas
to be withdrawn.
In attempting to vacate his plea,
much of the mitigating effect of pleading guilty had been lost, and attempts to
blame others for these offences was seen as an aggravating feature.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth, work record, residual
credit for plea.
Previous Convictions:
No previous record for
dishonesty.
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
30 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 4:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 5:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 6:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 7:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 8:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 9:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 10:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 11:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 12:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 13:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 14:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 15:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 16:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 17:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 18:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 19:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 20:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 21:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 22:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 23:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 24:
|
30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 30 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1:
|
27 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 4:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 5:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 6:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 7:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 8:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 9:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 10:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 11:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 12:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 13:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 14:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 15:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 16:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 17:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 18:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 19:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 20:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 21:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 22:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 23:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 24:
|
27 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 27 months’ imprisonment.
R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1.
Donachie,
you have pleaded guilty to 24 Counts of larceny as a servant. In total you took just over
£14,000 from your employer over an eight month period by arranging
refunds to your bank account via your debit card. It appears that you spent the money on a
lifestyle which you could not afford.
This was a clear breach of trust, you were trusted by your employer and
indeed, at times, you were left in charge.
2.
Pleas of
guilty normally attract considerable mitigation but you sought to withdraw your
plea of guilty despite it having been entered with the benefit of legal
advice. Worse than that, you sought
to put the blame on a fellow employee.
The Court refused your application but by your actions you have lost
much of the mitigation which would otherwise have been available for the
plea.
3.
There is
mitigation though. We take into
account the fact that you have no previous convictions for dishonesty; you have
been in regular employment; we have read the references, both work and
personal, which your Advocate has provided and we take into account your youth,
you are only just twenty-one, as well as the residual benefit of the guilty
plea. But nevertheless the Court
has a clear policy for offences of this nature where there is a breach of trust;
custody is imposed save in exceptional circumstances. We can see no exceptional circumstances
here and a custody sentence is the correct sentence. We have no criticism of the
Crown’s conclusions but we think that a little additional mitigation can
be given for your youth.
4.
The
sentence of the Court therefore is one of 27 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent on each Count.
Authorities
AG-v-Zielinski
[2008] JRC 028.
R-v-Barrick [1985] 7 Cr. App. R. (S)
142.
Pagett-v-AG [1984] JJ 57.
AG-v-Kirkham
[2005] JRC 131.
AG-v-Buckley
2001/175.
AG-v-Harris
[2004] JRC 020.
AG-v-Gray
[2004] JRC 140.