![]() |
[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 >> Tee, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 462 (22 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/462.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 462 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE EADY
and
SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
- v - | ||
VICTOR TEE |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7404 1400; Fax No 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr A Feest and Miss E Fargin appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS:
"All of my clients have been, and continue to be, referred to me by other clients who are more than satisfied with the way that I have conducted myself and my service."
The appellant said that he insisted on introductions being made by existing clients. He went on to say that he had appeared in court as a Mackenzie friend for a range of clients, including school teachers, care workers, bank officials and police officers. The prosecution submitted that the reference to school teachers was, by implication, to Sheila Madan, and the reference to police officers was to Mr Starr.
"The prosecution submit that Miss Madan's convictions are now made highly relevant in the light of Mr Tee's evidence where he has sought to place before the jury a number of names of other clients of his, including a police officer, who have not been prosecuted in this trial or indeed at all, with the clear inference, in my judgment, that it supports his contention that neither he nor his business methods were in any way dishonest, and should not be considered as being so by anyone. Indeed, he has indicated that he has been carrying out these activities for some twenty years or more and that nobody has suggested he is being dishonest in connection with them.In my judgment that does now put in a misleading picture before the jury if you [leave] out of the account the situation and status of Sheila Madan. She engaged with Mr Tee during the relevant period and has now admitted that she was involved in criminal activity in doing so. Counts relating to her are not conspiracy counts where, as in this indictment, the prosecution concede the two defendants so charged would stand or fall together, but I am going to direct the jury that on the attempting counts they can and must come to separate verdicts in respect of each defendant, and that in those circumstances one defendant could be guilty and one not.
Accordingly, I do consider that Mr Tee's evidence has now made a material difference to this trial and that there is a very real danger of the jury being misled if they do not now also hear what has happened in relation to Sheila Madan. I have taken into account the submissions made against this on his behalf, that Mr Tee could not have a fair trial if that were to happen, and that I should continue to exercise my discretion in his favour under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. But I consider that his evidence has been so emphatic and brought in the conduct of other clients of his, other than these defendants in this trial now, that the jury should now be given the full picture in relation to them and his other clients, and accordingly I grant the prosecution their application to now put Sheila Madan's convictions before the jury if they so wish."
Thereafter, evidence of Sheila Madan's convictions on counts 1 to 5 was placed before the jury in the course of cross-examination of the appellant.
"Now, members of the jury, you can see that it is alleged in each of these five counts that he, Mr Tee, acted together with Sheila Madan; that is in the particulars of each of those offences that I have set out. Now, during the course of the trial, members of the jury, you heard that Sheila Madan has pleaded guilty to each of those five counts. In other words, she for her part accepted that in each of these five circumstances an offence had occurred and that she was a party to each such offence. Now, it is important that you fully understand that Mr Tee for his part does not accept that any of these five offences have been committed, nor that he was a party to any such offence. His case, as you know, is that Sheila Madan had merely pleaded guilty to each of those five counts as a matter of expediency, that she is a lady who lives in Kent, that she has no money at all and therefore would be prepared to accept things merely to avoid having to go through the process of trial and hence her guilty pleas.Now, because you must consider fully Mr Tee's submission on each of these five counts separately, you must come to your own separate conclusions on the evidence presented before you as to whether, in respect of each of those five counts, you are sure that the prosecution has proved that an offence has occurred in each of these separate counts and, if you are sure that it has, then whether Mr Tee was a party to any such offence. If you are not sure on any of these five counts that all the ingredients of the alleged offence have been proved, or that Mr Tee was a party to it, then Mr Tee is entitled to be found not guilty on any count where that applies, whatever Sheila Madan may have done on that count and that is because, as I have stressed to you, you must consider the case against and for each defendant separately on each separate count and come to your own separate conclusions."
The judge went on to direct the jury in detail as to what the prosecution had to prove so as to make the jury sure of the appellant's guilt on the offences of attempting to evade liability by deception, including the need to prove dishonesty as well as a deliberate deception.
"But what about others who decided to join him in his scheme? Do they also become liable as party to attempting to commit a crime and so jointly responsible in law?"
The judge then gave a standard direction on joint enterprise and went on to explain how it applied in the circumstances of a case of this kind. Mr Power submits that it was a fallacy in these circumstances to suggest that Sheila Madan could be guilty of the offences with which she was jointly charged with the appellant without the appellant also being guilty as the person who devised the scheme. It was inescapable that the jury would conclude that if she was guilty of being involved in a dishonest scheme, then so must the appellant be guilty. That line of argument is said to be reinforced by the positions adopted by counsel for the co-accused in their closing speeches, that if the appellant was not guilty then the co-accused should be acquitted. Alternatively, if we have understood Mr Power's submissions correctly, he says that even if Sheila Madan's convictions did not lead logically to the appellant's guilt, they were nonetheless highly prejudicial as being likely adversely to influence the views of the jury regarding the credibility of his case and his evidence about it.
"You chose to make it part of your case before the jury that you had been doing this for twenty years with some 500 clients and I notice also that even once you had been interviewed and charged by the police you then had printed 100,000 leaflets setting out your scheme, to have them distributed, which you proceeded to do, even to the custody officer in the dock during the course of the trial ....This was systematic fraud, the indictment covering some £120,000 worth of debt, but it is not simply such an amount that is of relevance. You sought to use the misfortunes of others to your advantage, people who trusted you at the time. You were the instigator of this scheme and ran it fully with others, you being in charge of it. It was a scheme that was run by a man shown on the evidence to be riddled with dishonesty, but I note from the pre-sentence report that you do not accept the jury's verdicts and even now seek to justify your actions."
The judge said that he bore in mind that the offences were attempts, but they were nevertheless very serious attempts which the appellant fully hoped would succeed.
___________________________________