Lunn, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 34 (10 February 2017)

Lunn, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 34 (10 February 2017)

The indictment for cheating the Revenue was properly framed as a single count reflecting a systemic course of conduct; trial management was fair; the appellant's knowledge and participation were sufficiently proved; loss to the Revenue was established; sentencing was correctly based on overall harm and culpability, not limited to minimum proven transactions.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 34
Parties
Appellant: Christopher Lunn; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Cheating the Revenue, Indictment Particularity, Sentencing Guidelines, Abuse of Process, Duplicity
Criminal Law Cheating the Revenue Indictment Particularity Sentencing Guidelines Abuse of Process Duplicity

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Lunn

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether count 1 was duplicitous or lacked particularity
  2. 2 Whether trial management and indictment form were unfair
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had knowledge and participation in the alleged cheat

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment for cheating the Revenue was properly framed as a single count reflecting a systemic course of conduct; trial management was fair; the appellant's knowledge and participation were sufficiently proved; loss to the Revenue was established; sentencing was correctly based on overall harm and culpability, not limited to minimum proven transactions.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction on counts 1-4 upheld.
  • Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment affirmed.