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 guidelines, again the fraud guidelines.
Held: That had been inappropriate. Openshaw J said: ‘We have already observed that the appellants were perhaps fortunate that the prosecution chose not to pursue the charge of conspiracy to defraud. If the appellants had been convicted of such an offence, then maybe the total sentences passed would have been justified. But the offences to which they pleaded guilty and the basis upon which they fell to be sentenced are offences of neglect of duty only. Dishonesty is not a component of the regulatory offences. We think that the Recorder was wrong to sentence them upon the basis that dishonesty was alleged in the charge, let alone that it had been admitted.
Furthermore, in our judgment, the Recorder was also plainly wrong to seek guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Definitive Guideline on Fraud, which is also predicated upon dishonesty.’
Judges:
Lord Chief Justice, Holman J and Openshaw J
Citations:
[2012] EWCA (Crim) 186
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Price v Cheshire East Borough Council Admn 11-Oct-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.551075