“There is not a correlation between the amount of the loss and the amount of the order.”

Which is why, I suppose, Ramsdens have to spend more money to achieve the justice the system can’t – or, more likely, won’t – give them:

A Grimsby superstore is seeking legal action against a former employee who stole more than £55,000.Civil action is due to take place to recoup money taken from Ramsdens by James Jennings.

And why do they need to do this? Well, almost all the ill-gotten gains went over the bookie’s counter:

As reported, at Grimsby Crown Court, Jennings, 42, of Charles Street, Cleethorpes was ordered to pay over the £300 he had saved as “some gesture towards compensating the former employer”.

Ah, but he was imprisoned, shouldn’t that be enough, you cry?

Don’t be silly…

He received a one-year suspended prison sentence and was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work.

That work, of course, being for the state, and not the company that he defrauded. The company isn’t happy with what passes for ‘justice’. And they aren’t going to take it lying down for once:

Finance director Daryn Brookes, said the firm intended to pursue a civil case because of the extent of the loss.

He said bosses at his company were baffled why no order to pay the money back was made by the Judge Kate Buckingham.

Mr Brookes said: “We don’t understand the judgement. We can’t take the case any further through the criminal courts because it is a Crown Prosecution Case.

There was a small judgement but that is in no form of recompense.

“This was a very selfish act and people here are hurt.”

So, why wasn’t he ordered to pay more back?

A Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said the level of compensation is a matter for the judge as to whether an order is made and for how much. There is not a correlation between the amount of the loss and the amount of the order.

She added that the CPS did make an application for compensation and the judge had taken into consideration the defendant’s means to pay.

So it seems that if you squander your ill-gotten gains and have nothing left when the police catch up with you, you’re home free. That’s not justice, is it?

4 comments for ““There is not a correlation between the amount of the loss and the amount of the order.”

  1. wiggiatlarge
    February 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Sadly Julia that is almost the norm, I myself have had on two occasions in the past , one for a considerable amount been taken by somebody doing a runner , although caught I was at the bottom of the heap re any compensation after the banks! big companies etc, the difference being that I could not afford the civil prosecution and would have got nothing after the big fish.
    This is pretty much standard practise and short of using the Krays prefered method of extracting whats owed no real chance.
    Was he prosecuted by the police, despite doing a runner? when caught it simply went into a bankruptcy procedure, and were any criminal charges pursued, nope.
    If you are a small company or self employed your chances of any form of retribution – compensation are virtually nil in this country.

  2. Derek
    February 26, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Unfortunately large parts of the judiciary and the police have been so politicised that theft is no longer concidered a real crime. In the great socialist dream world the owning of property is a far greater crime than stealing. The days of an independent, non political judiciary are long gone.

    It may take a the passing of a generation to undo all the damage done by the Blair/Brown years.

  3. February 26, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    “So it seems that if you squander your ill-gotten gains and have nothing left when the police catch up with you, you’re home free.

    Funnily enough, if you replace “the police catch up with you” with “you need a care home” it’s equally true. Now that is a correlation.

  4. John XPC
    February 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    I know from experience that courts are quite weak on compensation but what surprised me was the sentence. Theft from one’s employer meant an automatic prison sentence of a minimum 6 months several years ago.(The rationale behind this is that the offence is also a breach of trust). I can only presume that the sentencing guidelines have been downgraded yet again or perhaps trust is now a non – PC word.

Comments are closed.