In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550503501005 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Work, University of East Anglia,
reviews recent appeal judgements and other judicial developments that inform
sentencing and early release.
Small-scale breach of trust
Three recent appeal cases help to illuminate the location of the custody threshold
in regard to this kind of economic crime.
A student aged 18 of previous good character working part-time as a supermarket
check-out assistant persuaded two fellow employees to use the credit card details
of a customer in transactions to obtain goods and cash back on his behalf, totalling
£217. He made immediate, full admissions on arrest. A PSR reported that he had
financial problems, having bought a car and mobile phone that he could not
afford to run. His father had recently died and his relationship with his mother was
strained so that he could not seek her help. He understood that another employee
who had committed this kind of dishonesty had been dismissed but not prosecuted.
The report proposed a community rehabilitation order. On committal for sentence
a term of one month YOI detention was imposed.
On his application for judicial review of his sentence (an appeal being unavail-
able to him), the Administrative Court determined that custody was neither
inevitable nor necessary in this instance. The sum in question was ‘small’ within
the Barrick guidelines on sentencing for breach of trust. Such economic crime com-
mitted when in debt and isolated from his family did not satisfy the ‘so serious’
custody threshold, given the offender’s youth, absence of record and promising
future. The case should have been dealt with by the magistrates by means of a
community order, as proposed. SOGBESAN (R on the application of) v INNER
LONDON CROWN COURT (2002, unreported).
Compare the case of a member of care staff in a MENCAP residential home whose
duties included purchasing clothing for residents from their personal allowances.
He took sums totalling £145 which he purported to spend on such items but which
he kept, supplying old clothing of his own instead. The thefts came to light when
another member of staff tried to exchange an item which a resident did not like.
When interviewed, the offender claimed that he had provided residents with ‘a
good bargain’. He pleaded not guilty. On his appeal against a term of nine
79
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2003 NAPO Vol 50(1): 79–87
[0264-5505(200303)50:1;79–87;031843]
www.napo.org.uk
www.sagepublications.com
In court
09 PJ 50-1 In court (JB/D) 30/1/03 2:11 PM Page 79
To continue reading
Request your trial