Rankine v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Harre, J.,Schofield, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1989
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: No. 79 of 1989
• Date: 02 June 1989

Rankine

and

Regina

Schofield, J.; Harre, J.

No. 79 of 1989

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence — Theft — Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, 4 months of which was suspended — Theft took place over a series of six transactions — Tried to conceal documents of the transactions — Aged 23 years with 3 children — Resorted to theft to pay off debts — Whether sentence excessive — Appeal dismissed.

Appearances:

Mr. Furniss for appellant.

Mr. Sibblies for Crown.

Schofield, J.

1 Hope Ann Rankine (“the appellant”) was convicted on her own plea of “guilty” to an, offence of theft, contrary to sections 212 and 218 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to nines months imprisonment four of which was suspended. She now appeals against that sentence.

2 The appellant was employed as a teller at C.I.B.C. Bank and Trust Company and between the 9th and the 16th days of January, 1989, stole a total of CI$4,900 and US$2,400 from the bank. This theft took place over a series of six transactions and the appellant tried to conceal the theft by destroying one copy of the document for each transaction. However internal auditors discovered the theft and when she was confronted with it the appellant admitted her guilt.

3 The appellant is 23 years of age and has three children. Sire had got, herself into financial. difficulties and resorted to theft to pay off her debts. She brought a cheque for $2.00 to court with her but although the Crown asked for a compensation order the learned magistrate did not impose such an order.

4 A partly suspended sentence was the correct approach in this case. The appellant was in breach of trust and the court must mark its disapproval of her conduct by imposing a real term of imprisonment. However it is the type of offence which this appellant is unlikely to be in a position to commit again, so a partial suspension of that term of imprisonment could be justified.

5 As regards the period of imprisonment chosen we are unable to say that it was manifestly excessive having regard to the seriousness of the offence.

The appeal is dismissed.

Schofield, J. Harre, J.

2nd June, 1989