Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Justices for the area of South Cheshire, who decided that the appellant should be committed to the Crown Court to stand trial on two charges. It is said that the Justices erred in law in the manner in which they reached their decision to commit for trial. The appellant was said to have used false or misleading information. The offence was triable either way. No sentencing guidelines applied to to the allegation. The appellant objected to the use of gudelines for fraud, since that offence had a much greater sentence available.
Held: The Justices wrong to approach the matter on the basis of the fraud guidelines, and looking at the circumstances of this offence, as known to the Justices, it is a case where they would have been entirely justified in taking the view that a court might well, once the full circumstances were gone into and whether or not there was a plea of guilty, have formed the view that a custodial sentence or a community sentence, rather than a fine, or indeed a fine in excess of the maximum which they were empowered to impose, would have been appropriate.
The case was remitted to the magistrates for reconsideration.
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 2927 (Admin), (2012) 176 JP 697, [2013] ACD 6, [2013] CTLC 99, [2012] WLR(D) 275, [2013] 1 WLR 1232
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Stone and Moore CACD 24-Jan-2012
There had been a charge of conspiracy to defraud, but that had not been pursued and instead there had been convictions for counts charged under the 2008 regulations. The sentences imposed by the Recorder were based upon what was said to be analogous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465201