Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 33 (Aug)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWCA Crim 1371
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Lord Justice Pitchford, Mr Justice Nicol and Mrs Justice Lang Dbe

Representation Ravinder Saimbhi (instructed by Powell Spencer & Partners) for the defendant.
  Don Rogers (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 31 July 2013


Criminal law - Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Defendant being charged with one count of making false representations (count 1) and two counts of theft (counts 2 and 3) - Victims being elderly persons suffering from dementia - Defendant contending victims having necessary capacity during his interactions with them - Judge determining both victims unfit to give evidence at trial - Judge allowing cross-admissibility of, amongst other things, counts 1 with counts 2 and 3 - Defendant alleging conspiracy to keep victims from giving evidence - Judge allowing prosecution to adduce evidence in rebuttal of defendant's claim - Defendant being convicted on all counts - Defendant appealing - Whether judge erring - Whether conviction unsafe - Theft Act 2006, s 1.

The Case

Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction and sentence following conviction for one count of making false representations and two counts of theft against two vulnerable elderly victims. The total sentence imposed was six years' imprisonment. The defendant had submitted that the judge had erred in allowing the cross-admissibility of the evidence relating to each count, had erred in his direction to the jury in respect of the admissibility of one of the victim's statements, and had erroneously allowed the evidence of a police officer to rebut claims of a conspiracy against him. Although the defendant found favour to some degree on some grounds, in the circumstances of the case over all, it was held that the conviction had not been rendered unsafe. Further, the sentence was deemed to be neither wrong in principle, nor manifestly excessive.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.