Rance v Regina: CACD 9 Oct 2012

The defendant appealed against the extent of fine and costs awards made against him following conviction for effective demolition of a substantial victorian property within a conservation area without consent. The court had refused to believe his statements as to his assets and income, but had also refused a confiscation order. The defendant said that he had indeed been wealthy but had lost it all in the property crash, and that the judge had not undertaken a proper enquiry as to his financial situation, and had allowed for support given to him by others.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The defendant had contributed to the situation by failing to anticipate the information the court would need. The judge had been entitled, in a complicated stuation, to rely on the defendant’s first description of his finances. He was entitled so to act.
As to whether the fine was disproportionate, the 1990 Act required the court to look at the benefits which might accrue to the defendant from his offence. The court had looked at the increased profit resulting from the defendant’s behaviour. Looking at historic cases, the fine was too large and was adjusted accordingly.
Moses LJ, Keith, Foskett JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 2023
Bailii
Planning (Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Criminal Justice Act 2003 16491)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Charalambous CACD 1984
The defendant appealed agains the financial penaties imposed.
Held: It was unjust that ‘a family should be fined’. . .
CitedRegina v Curtis CACD 1984
The defendant, a lorry driver had been fined andpound;10,000 for fraudulent evasion of the payment of duty on tobacco. The sentencer had indicated that he had imposed the fine to see ‘if those who had put the appellant up to the offence’ would pay. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.464760