QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019
A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Moulder J, Judge Thomas QC)
29 October 2019
In respect of alleged offences of fraud and engaging in an unfair commercial practice, a judge had correctly concluded that the enforceability of late payment and cancellation fees relating to the supply of domestic Energy Performance Certificates was a matter for him to determine. There was no legitimate interest in the charging of disproportionate late payment fees for the supply of the certificates.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019
Where a confiscation order had been made against a defendant who had been convicted of offences involving the improper retention of pension contributions, it was not disproportionate to require her to pay the full amount of the benefit obtained. Although she might have received the benefit of the pension contributions in any event, it was not open to her to argue that she would or might have acquired valuable rights had she acted honestly.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Fraser J, Sir David Foskett)
31 July 2019
False identity document offences committed by a victim of human trafficking were quashed as they had been committed in the context of a life of repeated trafficking and sexual exploitation. The offences were integral to, and consequent upon, the trafficking and exploitation so as to extinguish culpability.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Martin Spencer J, Judge Picton)
11 June 2019
The appellant’s conviction for fraudulently removing property in anticipation of the winding-up of a company contrary to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.206(1)(b) was unsafe, as the fraudulent conduct in question had not occurred within the requisite period, namely 12 months immediately preceding the commencement of the winding-up. Further, the conditions for substituting an offence involving “transactions in fraud of creditors” under s.207 of the Act were not met.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, May J, Swift J)
6 June 2019
Sentences of six years’ imprisonment, 24 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and 27 months’ imprisonment imposed for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of UK immigration law by abusing the Home Office Tier 4 Temporary Migration Programme through the sale of “confirmation of acceptance to study” at colleges where no education was offered were unduly lenient; the court replaced them with sentences of four years’ imprisonment, eight years’ imprisonment and 3 years and 11 months immediate imprisonment. Whilst the criminal activity may not have extended over a long period of time, the offenders had fully availed themselves of the opportunity presented, relatively large sums of money had been involved and the fraud had involved significant abuse of the points-based system.
CA (Civ Div) (Patten LJ, Hamblen LJ, Holroyde LJ)
9 April 2019
Where a company had a proprietary claim over proceeds of fraud because they had been obtained through the unlawful use of its property by its directors, it was entitled to assert its claim in priority to a confiscation order obtained by the CPS.
CA (Civ Div) (Gross LJ, Peter Jackson LJ, Rose LJ)
3 April 2019
HMRC had been entitled to impose penalties on a company and its directors under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 s.60 and s.61, as well as refusing a claim for input tax credit, where the company and its directors should have known that the company’s transactions were connected with missing trader fraud. In imposing the penalties, HMRC had not imported a gloss on s.60 and s.61 from EU case law, nor had it impermissibly extended the circumstances in which a criminal penalty could be imposed.
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson, Jeremy Baker J, Simler J)
28 March 2019
Where a fraud trial was discontinued and then reinstated after a complaint by the victim under the Victim’s Right to Review scheme prompted the Chief Crown Prosecutor to reconsider the notice of discontinuance, the judge had not erred in refusing to stay the prosecution. Prosecution of the case did not constitute executive misconduct and was not an abuse of process.
SC (Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Hodge JSC, Lady Black JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC, Lord Kitchin JSC)
27 February 2019
The extradition of a Czech Republic national who had been convicted of fraud offences in his absence was not unjust or oppressive, nor did it constitute an interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, notwithstanding the nine-year delay between the date of sentence and certification of the European arrest warrant. The district judge had correctly characterised the EAW as a conviction warrant and had taken full account of the passage of time.