In the case of Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R(S) 142 guidelines were set out for sentencing in cases where there was a breach of trust by employees and professional persons. In Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey it says this re Barrick at p79:
"In Jersey, Barrick has been used for the valuable ‘check-list’ of criteria which it offers for the factual analysis of a given breach of trust case; it has not been used in the fullness of its original purpose ie as a guideline on quantum of sentence."
The case of Barrick invites courts to look at the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender; the period over which the offences took place; the use to which the proceeds have been put; the effect on the victim; the impact on public and public confidence; the effect on colleagues and partners; the effect on the offender; the offenders personal history; and matters of mitigation personal to the offender: co-operation, character and other personal circumstances by way of example.
The local cases cited to us, Delaney (13 May1993) Jersey Unreported; Stilwell (19 January 1998) Jersey Unreported; Hay (10 July1995) Jersey Unreported; Hanley (14 October 1993) Jersey Unreported, give a clear indication that it is undoubtedly of paramount importance that the reputation and integrity of the financial business on this Island should be preserved and its reputation remain untarnished as far as possible.
Having said that there are, as the learned Attorney has said and as Mr Troy on his clients behalf has repeated, many matters of mitigation. We have here a man of previous good character. He has been extremely co-operative with the police throughout the interviews and this has assisted the investigative process. He has pleaded guilty and thereby avoided an expensive and complex trial. He is remorseful. He has suffered damage to his family life as a result of what has occurred. The matter has been hanging over him for some time. However, as the Court has said on several occasions, it is inevitable that offences as complicated as those committed by the defendant will take time to investigate and this is a price which has to be paid by those who embark upon this type of offence. There is the additional factor of his age (65). This was also present in the case of Day (6 July 1997), referred to on page 78 of Whelans Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, who was sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment at the age of 65, It is clearly a relevant factor which goes to mitigation.
Clearly, there were some defalcations inherited from the late Peter Tregunna in approximately 1983/1984.
What Bellows said in his statement made at the time of the initial interview was this:
"I am here to make a voluntary statement and to concerning shortfalls in the company which I own 100% called Lavy Hancox Management Limited. I have been living with this problem for some twelve years. I was in partnership with the late Peter Tregunna who was in a similar situation that I am now in. When I commenced in business, I think it was 1985 on my own account, I took over with me certain clients who were administered by myself. After I had set up the business working from home I discovered that three of those clients had shortfalls on their accounts. One of them was quite large it was in the sum of £250,000. As at this time I had only just commenced in business I was worried that I would have a licence that I had taken away from me. I accordingly gathered I got called upon for repayment of these monies and covered the deficit with other clients’ money. I then had propositions offered to me which were meant to make a lot of money and again I used clients’ funds to fund these propositions but needless to say came to nought. I can say that on the basis of certainly one of them which was meant to make a tremendous amount of money I then borrowed further funds for my own investments and in recent times I have had what is called teaming and lading between one client and another to keep the ball up in the air. That is a précis of what has happened".
We have to remind ourselves of what the Probation Officer said in his excellent report to this Court and it is a question which we each might have asked ourselves:
"Finally, I have asked myself, what would have happened if Mr Bellows had the foresight to bring into the open the problems he faced when he set up his new company? He may have lost business to begin with, as he feared, but I suspect his honesty would have been applauded. In my opinion, he had sufficient personal resources to build up a healthy company whatever the poor start".
Of course, in that context we have to recall that at the time and throughout Mr Bellows was earning in the region of £200,000 per annum and it might not have been too difficult to have set about making good the shortfall out of his own funds.
The Crown has asked for 5½ years imprisonment in this case. Mr Troy has said everything he possibly could say on his clients behalf and if we may say so has said it very well. However, even Mr Troy was only able to suggest a period of imprisonment of 5 years by way of an alternative.
Stand up, please, Bellows. We have given very careful thought to this matter and we sentence you to 5½ years imprisonment on each count, concurrent.
Authorities
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp76-81
Ibid: Noter-up 1995-1996: pp24-25
AG -v-Delaney (13 May 1993) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Stilwell (19 January 1998) Jersey Unreported
Barrick (1985) 7 Cr. App R (S) 142
AG -v- Hay (10 July 1995) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Hanley (14 October 1993) Jersey Unreported