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 £5, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Jersey Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Fortune [2010] JRC 166 (09 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2010/2010_166.html
Cite as: [2010] JRC 166

[New search] [Help]


[2010]JRC166

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9th September 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Trevor Fortune

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to the following charges:

6 counts of:

Contravention of Article 137(1)(a) of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 (Counts 1-6).

Age:  59.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Over a period of six Tax years, the defendant fraudulently failed to declare income totalling £63,584 of which arose from "private" decorating work.  The resulting lost tax amounted to £15,373.  Following enquiry from the Comptroller, the defendant had signed a Certificate of Full Disclosure which a subsequent investigation found to be false. 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant made admissions during his cautioned interview.  He admitted the infractions at the earliest opportunity.  By date of sentencing, he had paid his outstanding income tax.  His wife obtained a personal loan to pay the fine which was anticipated by the Court.  There had been a delay of over two years in bringing the matter to court. 

Previous Convictions:

2 old previous convictions in 1975 and 1983. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

£3,350 or two weeks' imprisonment in default. 

Count 2:

£6,340 or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 3:

£4,930 or 3 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 4:

£3,510 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 5:

£3,460 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 6:

£1,610 or 1 week's imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

£2,000 Prosecution costs sought. 

Total: £25,200 or 14 weeks' imprisonment in default.  

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In view of Prosecution's long delay the Court reduced the conclusions and declined to make any order for costs. 

Count 1:

£3,500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default. 

Count 2:

£3,500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 3:

£3,500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 4:

£3,500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 5:

£3,500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

Count 6:

£2,500 or 1 week's imprisonment in default, consecutive. 

The Prosecution's costs were declined. 

Total: £20,000 or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default, 2 weeks to pay. 

Miss. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. E. Le Cornu for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        As has been said many times before, those who cheat the system in relation to their tax obligations place greater burdens on their fellow, law-abiding citizens who do pay their dues.  In this case the offending was aggravated by the deception and prevarication which continued after the investigation had begun.  The Court is, however, concerned about the long delay which has taken place in the prosecution of a very simple case.   The Defendant has had this hanging over his head for some 2 years and may well have thought that he would not in fact be prosecuted.  We do not think, in principle, that fines totally 40% of the maxima are necessarily inappropriate, but taking into consideration the delay and all the circumstances of the case we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly. 

2.        Mr Fortune you did make a very foolish mistake.  We accept your Counsel's submission that you are otherwise of good character, you are a hard-working man and it is a great pity that you should have spoilt your reputation at this stage of your life. 

3.        We have to punish you for the offences that you have admitted.  We are going to fine you on charge 1; £3,500, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, on each of charges 2-5; £3,500, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, and on charge 6; £2,500 or 1 week's imprisonment in default, making a total of £20,000 in fines or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default, with 2 weeks to pay. 

4.        We decline to make an order for the costs of the Prosecution. 

Authorities

AG-v-Webster 1998/84.

AG-v-Bates [2004] JRC 135.


Page Last Updated: 02 Aug 2016


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2010/2010_166.html