Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided detailed guidance on victim personal statements and family impact statements in circumstances where three defendants had unsuccessfully appealed either against conviction or sentence for a range of offences where the issue of the victim personal statements and family impact statements were raised.
Sentence Detention. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused leave to refer sentences imposed on two defendants and refused to interfere with the sentences imposed on two further defendants in circumstances where the defendants, all members of the same family, had been convicted of a single count of conspiracy to require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant was convicted of money laundering. A confiscation order was made in the sum of 4.83m. In making that order, the judge had found that the defendant had to have received a commission of not less than 10% of the sums laundered. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal against the confiscation order in part, held that, given the uncertain state of the evidence, it was not in a position to determine a specific 'not less than' figure. Accordingly, the confiscation order was quashed and various directions made to the Crown Court.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided detailed guidance on the defence of loss of control in ss54 and 55 of the in circumstances where three defendants had unsuccessfully appealed against murder convictions where they had raised the defence of self-defence and-or loss of control.
Sentence Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence where he had received a total sentence of 27 months' imprisonment for one count of theft and one count of witness intimidation in circumstances where, in sentencing, the judge had said that he had been encourage to adopt a flexible approach to the relevant sentencing guidelines.
Negligence Causation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the first and second claimants' appeals against findings of liability made against them following a road traffic accident in which the claimant had been injured, but, in allowing part of the first defendant's appeal, held that the judge had mischaracterised the contribution of the second defendant to the accident and therefore re-apportioned liability.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been sentenced to a total of 13 years' imprisonment for a number of offences including robbery, attempted robbery and firearm offences after the defendant had targeted a number of banks, building societies and bookmakers over a six month period. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in allowing the appeal held that, the subsequent discovery of the defendant suffering from Asperger's syndrome, had it been known at the time of sentencing would have had an effect on the sentence passed. A total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment would be substituted.
Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. A property freezing order ordered the balance of the first defendant's funds in a Luxembourg bank to be brought within the jurisdiction. The defendants sought an order that the money should be returned, following the subsequent decision in Perry v Serious Organised Crime Agency (). The claimant Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) sought to rely on similar fact evidence of the first defendant's conviction for money laundering in the United Arab Emirates. The Queen's Bench Division held that the money had been lawfully brought within the jurisdiction and there were no grounds for returning it to Luxembourg. It further held that it would be open to SOCA to use the disclosure order to obtain information which related to the first defendant's criminal conduct.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendants were husband and wife and had pleaded guilty to offences of conspiracy to rob and money laundering. They appealed against the confiscation order on a number of grounds which challenged the calculation of benefit and assessment of available assets. Largely, their appeals failed except one ground which related to the benefit received by way of a mortgage advance. It was conceded by the Crown that following the case of R v Waya All ER (D) 166 (Nov) that sum should not have been included in the benefit figure for both defendants.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to one count of theft. He had worked as a bailiff and had stolen over 5000 from individuals he had been employed to execute warrants against. The money had been used to support his family. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and appealed against that sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed the appeal, quashing the sentence and substituting a sentence of four months' imprisonment.