BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> Farrell, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 511 (13 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/511.html Cite as: [2009] EWCA Crim 511 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
and
MR JUSTICE NICOL
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
- v - | ||
STUART JAMES FARRELL |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr G Reeds appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS: I shall ask Mr Justice Nicol to give the judgment of the court.
MR JUSTICE NICOL:
"Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) to have been committed on the last of those days."
That would suggest that both count 1 and count 2 were to be taken to have been committed on 17 November 2005 and so governed by the 2003 Act.
"[Farrell] is also in breach of the licence flowing from his commission of the offence within the period of licence following his release from the six year sentence back in June 2001. By reason of totality I do not think it is right to bring all of that licence into operation but it must come in in some form, and I reduce the total to one of twelve months. Twelve months' imprisonment will begin to run from today, and consecutive to that will be nine years' imprisonment. How that falls between the old law and the new is not for me to say. It looks as though it is the old law only and, therefore, the old calculation of the right to apply for parole is the one that existed before the 2003 Act came into force."
But, the National Offender Management Service took the view that the appellant's position was governed by the 2003 Act and that in the absence of a judicial order there would be no allowance for the time spent on remand.
"In clarifying your sentence, Judge Boulton has stated that the twelve months were ordered to be served first and before the nine years described above. This calculation takes account of 206 days spent on remand and a further 50 days rounded down, so that the defendant should spend no longer in prison than was absolutely necessary."
"It is clear from a transcript of a recording of conversations involving this defendant that he is very well aware of the need to hide as untraceable any property that has come to him as a result of drug trafficking and I have had my attention drawn in the statement of Mr Chadwick to his various utterances which show just how careful he was at the relevant time."
The judge had information that the applicant's father had paid £30,000 by way of deposit on [an address] Road, and had then obtained a mortgage for £50,000. The judge said:
".... I simply find that incredible in all the circumstances because I know what the defendant's father's income was at the relevant time and I know that he purports to have purchased two or three properties in Spain a year before this for a total of something in the region of £200,000. It seems to me incredible that he would raise a mortgage of £50,000 when he had realisable assets of four times that at his disposal."
The judge was satisfied that the transaction in relation to [an address] Road was a sham. He added:
"I do not know whether it was an undervalue but certainly the property in my view remains that of this defendant in all but name and to that extent he holds the property and holds it at all relevant times."
________________________________________