Rogue trader’s sentence means one thing - steal millions, not cents

AT least, for a change, the Government can’t be blamed for the disappearance of the €5.7 million in a scam that left some people without their life savings.

Because somebody has stocks and shares doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in the millionaire bracket, but whether or not, Stephen Pearson couldn’t have cared less.

He merrily ripped off unfortunate people, from pensioners in their nineties to clients with more than e1 million to spare, to a children’s charity when he was a partner in W&R Morrogh, the stockbroking firm.

Divine inspiration did not descend on the former monk as he played the markets with other people’s money for seven years until he was discovered.

While the Investor Compensation Company is making repayments to customers, it’s unlikely that everybody affected will get all their money back.

The disabled childrens’ charity, of which he was treasurer when he misappropriated the money, was eventually reimbursed and the organisation did not suffer any loss.

His wife and three children have been surviving on social welfare payments and her earnings.

W&R Morrogh, which had been trading honourably for 100 years, went out of business because of him.

About the only person who did not really suffer to any great extent was Stephen Pearson himself.

For making €5.7 million of other people’s money disappear, he got only two years in prison, having pleaded guilty last June to 47 charges, including 32 of fraudulently converting clients’ funds, 11 of forgery, and four of obtaining funds under false pretences.

The risk factor of going to jail for that kind of money is attractive, especially if the money, or some of it, is salted away - although it seems Pearson won’t have any stash waiting for him as it’s thought he didn’t gain personally.

But even if you factor in being caught and sent to jail, the risk is still attractive. While you’re detained at the taxpayers’ expense with all the material comforts of home - like colour television and, good food - thoughts of the Barbados or the Bahamas will cheer up your day. The Cayman Islands might even cross your mind occasionally, although these days you would never know who you might bump into there.

In Pearson’s case, he might reflect on what Judge Desmond Hogan said in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

The judge said that Pearson’s trading led to the Cork firm’s downfall and left clients - many of them “old and vulnerable” - with an “uncertain financial future”.

He brought down a century-old firm.

He left old and vulnerable clients with what was euphemistically described as an “uncertain financial future.” For that read probable ruin.

Yet, the court only imposed a two-year sentence. Oh yes, Pearson promised to be a good boy when he comes out and stay away from the stockbroking business. As if that was an option for him.

By no stretch of the imagination does a sentence of two years in jail, and a third year suspended, reflect what Pearson did, or the damage he caused to people who trusted him.

For what he did, it practically amounts to a slap on the wrist. Apparently, the court took into account his co-operation with the investigation. However, his victims, those old and vulnerable clients, have every reason to feel that justice was ill-served.

But then the entire question of sentencing in this area defies reason.

Pearson got two years for effectively stealing €5.7 million, while a man who stole merely €45,000 from a security van got three years jail earlier this year, but the last year was suspended.

Three years in jail, suspended, was handed down to another for stealing paint worth €85,000. And a woman who went on a shopping spree with a stolen chequebook was given a three-year suspended jail sentence.

Seemingly the only logic that can be applied to the sentencing regime here is that you should steal as much as you can, if you’re that way inclined, because three years, with some of it suspended, is the worst scenario you’re likely to face.

And while you’re in there, find Jesus. Apparently it’s a big help, although your victims would rather you found their money.

SENTENCING in a far more serious area - rape - is something that needs also to be reviewed, as should the whole issue of the criminal justice system surrounding this heinous crime.

A headline I thought should give comfort to women gave me reason to think again. It appeared this week in the Irish Examiner: “‘Predator’ rapist has four-year jail sentence increased.”

The man in question was described as “a violent rapist” who had been jailed for four years, having left his victim for dead.

Before he was sentenced, his victim, who is now 27 years old, told the Central Criminal Court she hoped he received a sentence “that matches that you have imposed on me for the rest of my life.” Of course, he didn’t.

He was originally sentenced to a mere four years for rape with a six-month sentence for assault. Apart from trying to choke her, the man threatened his victim that if she didn’t stop shouting he would kill her, and she did, indeed, fear for her life.

Naturally he claimed she had consented to sex and denied rape, although he admitted hitting her a number of times.

Nice boy.

This week the sentence was increased by three years, even though the attack happened in 2002. And it wouldn’t have been increased but for the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the original court decision.

He was right because what that woman was put through, even if her life hadn’t been threatened, was diabolical.

The woman in question displayed remarkable courage by going through with the prosecution in the first place because it’s an established fact that many women in her situation have no confidence that they will get justice.

The statistics back them up. According to the Rape Crisis Network, 95% of rape cases do not result in a conviction. And the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre says most of their clients regard the court experience as being “at least as traumatic as the offence.”

Consequently, only one-third of sexual abuse or assault victims lodge complaints.

Would you blame the rest for not doing so if they believe that the law, or the criminal justice system, is loaded against them? For that reason it appeared rather simplistic for a senior judge, Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clarke, to suggest this week that rape offenders should compensate their victims.

I doubt if compensation is the most important item that rape victims think about, if they think about it at all.

What’s more important to them is to get justice by way of the perpetrator being convicted and sent away for a long time.