[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Robinson, R v [2002] EWCA Civ 2490 (08 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2490.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 2490

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		8th November 2002

Lord Justice Pill:

1. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, leave having been refused by the single judge with the comment that "For what was found proved by the jury you can not complain as to sentence".
2. The facts are summarised in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the judgment in the appeal against conviction. The application is in relation only to the custodial sentence, a term of seven years imprisonment. The applicant is now 58 years old and is of previous good character.
3. Mr Etherington submits, and we accept, that the legal practice, of which the applicant was senior partner, did much good work and was not set up for the purposes of fraud. The applicant lived entirely for the firm. Character witnesses were called during the trial.
4. Apart from the large sum of money involved in the fraud, the judge, in his sentencing remarks, attached importance to the fact that the applicant had involved many employees of the firm in the fraud. That is to some extent mitigated, submits counsel, by the fact that the appellant preyed not on their vulnerability but on their greed. The judge acknowledged that the conviction would have very serious consequences for the applicant. He stated that the sentence must have a element of deterrence.
5. Mr Etherington accepts that the sentence is within the relevant bracket in the guidelines stated in R v Barrick [1995] Cr App R (S) 142 as re-set in R v Clarke [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 95, the breach of trust being that of a solicitor to the Legal Aid Board and to the public. It is submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the utter ruin and devastation of the applicant consequent upon his conviction, to his personal circumstances, including his poor health, to the delay which occurred between offence and sentence and to the fact that the fraud was already running down in 1994. We accept that the applicant’s time in prison may be the more difficult because of his former occupation. We have also considered the schedule of sentences prepared by the applicant on the basis of the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for 2000 to 2001.
6. As to delay, we agree with the judge that it is very understandable why it took so long for a successful prosecution to be brought. It took a considerable time to unravel the web of deceit in which the applicant was involved and significant weight cannot be given to this factor.
7. We agree with the judge’s analysis of the seriousness of this offence and with the sentence imposed. Giving full recognition to the mitigation relied on, it was an appropriate sentence and not manifestly excessive. The application for permission to appeal is refused.