The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under the Fraud Act 2006, but in relation to events taking place before it came into effect. This mistake was corrected by amendment, but it was now said that the new allegations fell foul of the rule in Preddy.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Though the defendant had pleaded guilty, and the mistake might still have been corrected and the defendant convicted, the mistake was egregious and it required correction applying Forde.
Sir Brian Leveson P said: ‘This case reveals many failings in the system primarily on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service and the prosecution but extending beyond that to the defence and the court. We would expect the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute an urgent review of how charging practice could so utterly have failed accurately to identify the offences which this comparatively common conduct revealed and to institute measures to ensure that failures of this type will not recur. It is equally incumbent on those acting for defendants to scrutinise the indictment and ensure that it is not proceeding on a basis unjustified in law.
The judiciary, of course, has a critical part to play and judges, also, must be satisfied that indictments which will form the basis for sentences after a plea of guilty or trials (and possible sentence) proceed on a legally sound footing but it must be recognised that our system is adversarial and relies on the parties to ensure that legal and procedural proprieties are observed. Judges will inevitably focus on the particular issues placed before them: care must be taken by everyone to identify what those issues should be.’
Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Wilkie, Lang DBE JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 714, [2014] WLR(D) 175
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Forde CCA 1923
A man, under the age of 23, had intercourse with a 15 year-old girl. He was charged with offences against section 5(1) of the 1885 Act and section 52 of the 1861 Act, relating to the same act of intercourse. He pleaded not guilty to the first (more . .
Cited – Regina v Boal (Francis) CACD 3-Jun-1992
A temporary manager brought in for a week was not a responsible officer for fire precautions’ breaches. An appeal against conviction after a plea of guilty has been tendered will only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, for example where an . .
Cited – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
Cited – Regina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins HL 1983
The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the . .
Cited – Ramzan and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Jul-2006
The court considered its power on allowing an appeal after a plea of guilty to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offence.
Held: Hughes LJ said that section 3A of the 1968 Act imposed a two stage test. The court considering . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v CACD 25-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order after his conviction for obtaining a mortgage advance by fraud. Though he had obtained 450k, the house he had purchased had increased considerably in value. The original loan had been repaid in . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – Stocker, Regina v CACD 13-Nov-2013
The prosecutor had made an error in framing a charge against the defendant, who now appealed saying that it was a nullity. After reviewing the authorities, Hallet LJ noted that there was now ‘a clear judicial and legislative steer away from quashing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523751