SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Sheriff Connelly made the following comments:

"Mrs Lawrence, in determining the appropriate sentence to impose I have considered the sentencing guidelines in relation to both the principles and purpose of sentencing and the sentencing process to be carried out by this court.

"In terms of the sentencing process, I have to first assess the seriousness of the offence and then determine the appropriate sentencing range, next I require to identify any aggravating or mitigating factors and determine the headline sentence.

"Given you have been on bail throughout these proceedings I do not need to consider any questions of backdating any sentence and I also take into account the fact that you pled guilty at a continued first diet, thereby avoiding the need for a trial.  I also require to consider any ancillary orders deemed appropriate in this case.

"In terms of seriousness of this offence, this is to be assessed both in terms of your culpability and the level of harm caused.

"Culpability: You are to blame for your own behaviour here, although it is clear that you were acting under the influence of someone who sought to trick and defraud you. A psychological assessment prepared on your behalf concludes that you were vulnerable and that your judgment was impaired, however you have accepted, as you must, responsibility for your own conduct.

"Harm: Significant and enduring. The impact your conduct has had on your estranged husband and extended family cannot be underestimated. Your actions were a complete betrayal of trust and had devastating financial consequences.

"I consider that the appropriate sentencing range here is from a maximum level Community Payback Order with Unpaid Work and a Restriction of Liberty Order to 2 years custody.

"Aggravating factors: This was a deliberate and sustained scheme whereby you pretended to financial institutions to be your husband and arranged a remortgage of the home and encashment of your husband’s pension without his knowledge or consent.

"You then transferred the substantial funds released to an individual who you believed to be a romantic partner who required funds temporarily. It appears on the face of it that you genuinely believed that the funds would be returned by this individual and you would be able to repay the sums. How you thought that could have been done without your husband eventually discovering it is unclear.

"Mitigating factors: As noted, the surrounding circumstances do involve a degree of mitigation in that you yourself were targeted by a fraudster who sought to exploit your vulnerability and poor judgment. You lost a lot of your own money as well and are now in significant debt.

"You did not personally gain financially at all. Your own personal circumstances also offer an element of mitigation in so far as you are a first offender and appear to be remorseful of your actions. You have a long and positive work history and other than this offence you have lived a pro-social life.

"The author of the Criminal Justice Social Work report has assessed you as low risk of further offending. You also have a number of health concerns, no doubt some of which have arisen in part due to the stress and anxiety surrounding this case. You have of course lost your relationship with your husband and family and you have also lost your reputation.

"Before deciding on your sentence, I have considered the principles and purposes of sentencing. Sentencing should be fair and proportionate and no more severe than necessary to achieve the sentencing purpose. There are a number of purposes of sentencing and these are, in no particular order: protection of the public from harm; punishment; rehabilitation of offenders; giving offenders opportunity to make amends; expression of disapproval of offending behaviour and deterrence.

"I also have to take account of the fact that there is a statutory presumption against a prison sentence for someone who has not served a period of custody before unless the court determines there is no other appropriate way of dealing with the offence. There is also a statutory presumption against imposing short sentences of less than 12 months, again unless there is no other appropriate disposal.

"There can be no doubt that the court disapproves of this type of offending behaviour and that you require to be punished for it. The nature of the offending and the sums involved mean that this case is one which crosses the custody threshold. However, I also consider that given what is within the Criminal Justice Social Work Report that there is an opportunity here for rehabilitation and I do not consider there is any risk to the public generally given the nature of the offending and the fact that you have been assessed as a low risk of re-offending.  For these reasons, and in particular having regard to the background to the offence and your own personal circumstances, I do not consider that custody is the only option available to this court.

"What I intend to impose is a very high tariff direct alternative to custody, and one which will see you under the supervision of the Criminal Justice System for longer than a relatively brief prison sentence would allow. I intend to impose a Community Payback Order where you will be subject to supervision of the Criminal Justice Social work team for a period of 2 years. You will also require to undertake the maximum of 300 hours of Unpaid Work for the community within 12 months. In addition, you will be subject to a Restriction of Liberty Order with Electronic Monitoring requiring you to remain within your home address between the hours of 8pm to 6am for the next 6 months. These orders are imposed as a direct alternative to custody, and should you fail to comply with any aspect of the orders, you will be reported back to court, and the orders could be revoked and you could be sent to prison instead.

"Finally, I will impose a Non-Harassment Order requiring you to refrain from contacting, communicating or attempting to communicate with the complainer for a period of 10 years from today."