R v Michael Stainer

R v Michael Stainer

There is no merit in the grounds of appeal against conviction or sentence. The applicant's assertions regarding disclosure, prosecutorial misconduct, and fresh evidence do not render the convictions unsafe. The judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines, gave proper weight to mitigation, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentence could not be suspended as it exceeded two years.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Michael Stainer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Consideration of Fresh Evidence
Outcome
applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; order for costs made against applicant
Legal Topics
Cheating the Public Revenue, Fraud by False Representation, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure, Fresh Evidence, Disclosure, Bankruptcy
Criminal Law Cheating the Public Revenue Fraud by False Representation Sentencing Appeal Procedure Fresh Evidence Disclosure Bankruptcy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Michael Stainer

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Consideration of Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for cheating the public revenue and fraud by false representation are unsafe
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether there was prosecutorial misconduct or disclosure failure

Ratio Decidendi

There is no merit in the grounds of appeal against conviction or sentence. The applicant's assertions regarding disclosure, prosecutorial misconduct, and fresh evidence do not render the convictions unsafe. The judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines, gave proper weight to mitigation, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentence could not be suspended as it exceeded two years.

Court Disposition

applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused; order for costs made against applicant

Orders

  • Refusal of extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction
  • Refusal of extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence