The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed Carol Hawkins’s appeal against her seven-year prison sentence, ruling that the trial judge made no error of principle.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 7 November 2014, followed the court’s dismissal of Hawkins’s appeal against conviction on 29 October. The sentence appeal had been heard that same day.
Hawkins was sentenced in July 2012 after a jury convicted her of theft offences involving 181 cheques belonging to her employer, Adam Clayton, worth about €2.8 million. The court said she had worked for Clayton as a housekeeper from 1992 and later as his personal assistant, with signing rights on two bank accounts to pay his expenses. It said her duties did not permit her to pay herself a bonus.
The judgment described forensic accounting evidence about spending from the proceeds, including horse racing, credit card payments, transfers to family members, a car and property in New York. The figures quoted in the judgment were rounded down to the nearest thousand.
The trial judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment, below the 10-year maximum for theft under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. In sentencing, he cited the scale and duration of the offending and the breach of trust as aggravating factors. He also referred to Hawkins’s previous good character and her cooperation in securing the net proceeds from the sale of the New York apartment for Clayton as mitigation.
On appeal, Hawkins’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge had failed to account for her educational achievements in prison and the lasting effect of the case’s notoriety on her future prospects. The appeal court said rehabilitation during imprisonment and possible future hardship did not establish an error in the original sentencing decision. It also said the trial judge had properly considered rehabilitation and mercy, and had distinguished this case from the most serious band of offending, including cases where victims are left in real financial distress.
The court held that it could not reconsider the sentence simply because it might have imposed a different one. Finding no error of principle, it dismissed the appeal and left the seven-year sentence in place.