Blight, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 280 (12 February 2019)

Blight, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 280 (12 February 2019)

In cases of fraud involving dishonest failure to declare maritime wreck, the proper measure of loss for sentencing is the full value of the undeclared property, as the offenders are not entitled to salvage awards or reimbursement of costs. The sentencing judge was correct to use the estimated value of £100,000 as the measure of harm. Sentences for associated offences should be concurrent and reflect the totality of criminality.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 280
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: John Simon Blight; Appellant: Nigel Ingram
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed save for variation of sentences on counts 1, 2, and 4 for Ingram.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Sentencing, Merchant Shipping, Proceeds of Crime, Salvage Rights
Criminal Law Maritime Law Fraud Sentencing Merchant Shipping Proceeds of Crime Salvage Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

John Simon Blight

Appellant

Nigel Ingram

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper approach to sentencing for fraud involving dishonest failure to declare wreck under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995
  2. 2 Assessment of harm and loss for sentencing purposes in fraud involving maritime wreck
  3. 3 Applicability of salvage awards in calculating loss

Ratio Decidendi

In cases of fraud involving dishonest failure to declare maritime wreck, the proper measure of loss for sentencing is the full value of the undeclared property, as the offenders are not entitled to salvage awards or reimbursement of costs. The sentencing judge was correct to use the estimated value of £100,000 as the measure of harm. Sentences for associated offences should be concurrent and reflect the totality of criminality.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed save for variation of sentences on counts 1, 2, and 4 for Ingram.

Orders

  • Sentence on Ingram for count 1 increased to 4 years' imprisonment.
  • Sentences on Ingram for counts 2 and 4 reduced to 18 months each, all sentences concurrent.