Byrne & Ors v R. (Rev 1)

Byrne & Ors v R. (Rev 1)

Convictions are not unsafe as Ager's evidence was unchallenged and no contradictory expert evidence was called; his later discrediting does not undermine the original trials. Bad character evidence was properly excluded as lacking substantial probative value. Sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and totality was properly considered.

Parties
Appellant: James Francis Byrne; Appellant: Dylan Creaven; Appellant: Andrew Stephen Rowe; Appellant: Sami Raja; Appellant: Paul Moore; Appellant: Michael Moore; Appellant: Haydon Driscoll; Respondent: Regina; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service, Specialist Fraud Division
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Bad Character Evidence, Disclosure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Fraud Evidence Expert Evidence Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Bad Character Evidence Disclosure +1 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Francis Byrne

Appellant

Dylan Creaven

Appellant

Andrew Stephen Rowe

Appellant

Sami Raja

Appellant

Paul Moore

Appellant

Michael Moore

Appellant

Haydon Driscoll

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Crown Prosecution Service, Specialist Fraud Division

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions are unsafe due to reliance on discredited expert evidence (Andrew Ager)
  2. 2 Admissibility and impact of bad character evidence
  3. 3 Whether sentencing was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions are not unsafe as Ager's evidence was unchallenged and no contradictory expert evidence was called; his later discrediting does not undermine the original trials. Bad character evidence was properly excluded as lacking substantial probative value. Sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and totality was properly considered.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused.

Orders

  • Convictions upheld for all appellants.
  • Sentences confirmed.