Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Benefield [1989] FJHC 2; Hac0001.1988s (19 July 1989)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1 OF 1988

Between:

STATE

VS.

MICHAEL DESMOND BENEFIELD

Mr. I. Mataitoga for the State
Mr. Q. Bale for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused has been convicted of fraudulently converting in excess of $13,000 from two trust accounts maintained by the law firm of Munro, Leys & Co. of which he was a partner at the relevant time.

In respect of one of the accounts there is some evidence that the monies have been repaid by the firm to the client concerned.

The assessors are unanimously of the view that the various payments that were made out of the accounts were not authorized.

The accused at the relevant time was the partner most directly responsible for the accounts and needless to say enjoyed the absolute trust of his clients. He has seriously betrayed that trust.

It might be that the accounting system in Munro, Leys & Co. could have been more secure in the area of clients authorizing payments.

But the accused is a professional lawyer privileged to belong to what has sometimes been described as an honourable profession where the highest standards of trust and honesty are required and it behoves all who practise in that calling to adhere uncompromisingly to those standards.

The accused has been disbarred from further practicing in his chosen profession as a barrister and solicitor by a committee of his peers and colleagues and that in itself is a severe punishment.

He has effectively squandered his professional life and career and this at such a late stage in his life. He will long have to suffer the disgrace he has brought upon himself and his family and one cannot but feel a sense of sadness at having to pass sentence on such a man.

But I would be failing in my duty if I were not to pass a sentence on the accused, which did not reflect the seriousness of the offences of which he has been convicted.

Fraudulent conversion is an offence for which the law in this country provides a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

Taking into account all the various factors urged on his behalf by learned counsel and in particular the fact that this case has haunted him for the past 3 years and has been a root cause in the break up of his marriage and family, the most lenient sentence of the court is that:

On each of the 9 counts on which the accused has been convicted he is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. All sentences to run concurrently.

D. V. FATIAKI
JUDGE

19^th July, 1989
At Suva

HAC0001.88S