Punishment to fit the purse?

Tuesday 30th November 2010, 3:00PM GMT.

THE crimes for which Leonard Vandenborn has been convicted and jailed were abhorrent and few would suggest that the 12-year sentence that he is now serving is either inappropriate or disproportionate. Nevertheless, there is a feature of his treatment by the judicial system which raises difficult issues.

Having lost his appeal against conviction for sex offences, Vandenborn was ordered to pay £190,000. This sum was categorised as a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution, but it is difficult not to regard it as something else as well – an additional penalty.

It is clearly within the court’s powers to make orders of this nature and it can be argued that they may serve the interests of natural justice. After all, had Vandenborn admitted his offences, the process of dealing with him would have been a far less costly exercise.

In spite of this, there were worrying features of the order in question. For example, the Court of Appeal judge noted that Vandenborn owns a ‘substantial’ house. Are we therefore to conclude that a wealthy person who is guilty of an offence can expect to be treated differently from someone of limited means? If this is the case, the concept of blind justice might need to be revisited and revised.

More disturbingly, a defendant’s perception of the treatment likely to be meted out at the end of a trial might lead to a higher incidence of guilty pleas – not because more people face up to their crimes, but because they fear the financial consequences of conviction as much as conviction itself.

There is, meanwhile, the possibility of what might be called the collateral damage caused by orders for costs. Even in circumstances where few would object to the full force of the law being brought to bear on an individual, the court should surely take into account the incidental impact on that individual’s family.

Few would object to the proceeds of crime principle being applied to confiscate the illicit profits of, say, drug dealing. Equally, few would object to costs being awarded after a defendant has been deliberately obstructive and has done his or her best to drag out court proceedings.

However, these special cases can be seen as exceptions to more general rules – that neither a person’s wealth nor the mere fact of entering a not guilty plea should influence the imposition of penalties.

1
Tony Gallichan

November 30, 2010 at 4:42 pm

And there it is. The JEP trying to defend someone found guilty of sex offenses, simply because he is rich. Well done. You’ve finally crossed the line so that you are now overtly siding with the corrupt and guilty.

Because thats what this is. Don’t be fooled by the argument of one punishment for the rich, one for poor… we know well and good, that in Jersey it tends to be one law for the rich and everyone else can go to, er, heck…. Its a miricle at all that this guy even came to trial considering the incredibly poor record of our AG’s down the years…

Simply astounding.

Report abuse
2
jj

November 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm

I cant believe this is the opinion of a newspaper. Are you trying to be nice to this guy despite being found guilty.

I would expect that if a person can quite obviously afford to pay for some of their court costs then they should be made to pay the costs. Surely, anyone in that situation is not going to plead guilty just to save some money. It is a very damning verdict to have against you so why would you limit the cost if not guilty.

Are you trying to say it is not fair on the family that someone has to pay the costs of their crime? Maybe because it has an effect on their inheritance perhaps. Well, its tough,, and whilst I feel it is sad for the rest of the family this guy brought up a family yet comitted crimes against others so is not a responsible head of the family. If the family feel agrieved, which I doubt they do and it is just your shabby opinion, then they would I hope be voicing their agreivance at the person found guilty and not at the courts for ordering him to pay up.

Shocking opinion, in my oinion!!

Report abuse
3
Gross Misconduct

November 30, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Yet another misjudged editorial from the JEP. How many more own goals do there have to be before the editor is sent off!

Report abuse
4
Flymo

December 1, 2010 at 7:38 am

One is rather bemused and a little offended by this comment from the JEP. Is there an underlying reason for this “Opinion”?

In life, the more you have, the more you have lose, especially when you break the laws of the land.

Report abuse
5
Tax Payer

December 1, 2010 at 8:52 am

Sorry, JEP you are entirely wrong. The man is a crimminal and should pay up.

I believe he owns several houses, not just one ‘substantial’ one.

Report abuse
6
PJG

December 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Are the 5 preceding posters on here missing the point?
Firstly the article says “THE crimes for which Leonard Vandenborn has been convicted and jailed were abhorrent and few would suggest that the 12-year sentence that he is now serving is either inappropriate or disproportionate”

All agreed so far?

The question that the article asks, is
“Should the rich receive a larger penalty than the poor for the same crime?”
If the answer to that is, no, they deserve the same penalty, why are there not more “contributions towards the costs of the prosecution” awarded in cases of proved guilty where there have been “not guilty” pleas.

Is it because this money would be taken from an offender “before” his defence lawyers fee and could leave the poor lawyer who advised telling the untruth, issuing a bill his client could not pay?
IMO they were right to take the money from Leonard Vandenborn, It’s just a pity they don’t do it to all court time wasters (tax payers money wasters).

Report abuse
7
Charles

December 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm

I can’t believe the comments raised here, the politics of envy seem to be outweighing common-sense.

Yes, the guy is a convicted criminal and will serve a long jail sentence. That is, quite properly, society’s retributionn. I don’t understand however why he should pay the prosecution costs.

The risk of these being imposed on other defendants is inevitably going to lead to miscarriages of justice as people accused of crimes plead guilty, whether they have done it or not, just to avoid such punitive charges.

Report abuse
8
CJ

December 1, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Whatever the cost to Vandenborn, the cost to his victims is life long. How must his victims feel seeing an opinion in print so sadly misguided? Disgraceful.

Report abuse