This week’s Digest considers three judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In the first, a conviction for reckless arson was quashed on the grounds that it was rendered unsafe by fresh evidence. The second raises the question of the correct application of the Sentencing Council’s Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences Definitive Guideline. The final judgment considers the correct approach to assessing the benefit obtained from fraudulently acquired mortgages.

R v Rana [2018] EWCA Crim 735

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 11.04.18.

This was an appeal against conviction for reckless arson and perverting the course of justice on the basis of the fresh evidence of an expert. The evidence undermined a central pillar of the prosecution case in relation to the location of the applicant when she was alleged to have set the fire. In light of the evidence, the appeal was allowed and the convictions quashed.

 

R (Health and Safety Executive) v ATE Truck & Trailer Sales Ltd [2018] EWCA Crim 752

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Gross LJ on 13.04.18.

This was an appeal against sentence imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Council’s Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences Definitive Guideline. The appellant was successful on appeal in arguing that the sentencing judge had fallen into error in imposing a fine of £475,000, as he had departed from the agreed basis of plea without justification and focussed in his approach on a count on the indictment in respect of which no evidence had been offered.

 

R v Reid [2018] EWCA Crim 628

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Carr J on 13.3.18

The Court of Appeal considered the approach to take when making a confiscation order to calculate the benefit obtained from fraudulently acquired mortgage transactions in circumstances where the property was originally acquired legitimately.  If the defendant had acquired the property with untainted funds and had either repaid, or undertaken to repay the sum due under a remortgage, the court held that the approach to take when calculating the benefit obtained by the defendant was the same for other mortgage transactions, namely a proportionate calculation based on the equity increase achieved in the property.

 

UK publishes legal case for air strikes on Syria

 

ICC prosecutes Islamist militant on gender-based charge

 

Google loses landmark right to be forgotten case

 

Online support grows following rugby stars’ rape acquittal

 

Previous post FCA proposes guidance on systems and controls for insider dealing
Next post Legally binding: when do criminal statutes bind the Crown?