Dosanjh & Ors v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 2366 (17 December 2013)

Dosanjh & Ors v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 2366 (17 December 2013)

The Court held that Parliament deliberately retained the common law offence of cheating the public revenue with penalty at large for the most serious revenue frauds, and there is no inconsistency with Rimmington. Sentences in excess of statutory maxima are proper for such offences. However, the sentences imposed were somewhat too high compared to previous decisions and draft guidelines, warranting reduction.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 2366
Parties
1st Appellant: Sandeep Dosanjh; 2nd Appellant: Navdeep Gill; 3rd Appellant: Ranjot Chahal; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences reduced.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Fraud, VAT Fraud, Conspiracy to Cheat Public Revenue, Missing Trader Intra Community (mtic) Fraud
Criminal Law Sentencing Fraud VAT Fraud Conspiracy to Cheat Public Revenue Missing Trader Intra Community (mtic) Fraud

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 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Dosanjh

1st Appellant

Navdeep Gill

2nd Appellant

Ranjot Chahal

3rd Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed for conspiracy to cheat the public revenue were wrong in principle due to exceeding statutory maxima for comparable offences
  2. 2 Whether sentences were manifestly excessive given the facts and sentencing guidelines
  3. 3 Whether there was unjustified disparity between sentences for Gill and Chahal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Parliament deliberately retained the common law offence of cheating the public revenue with penalty at large for the most serious revenue frauds, and there is no inconsistency with Rimmington. Sentences in excess of statutory maxima are proper for such offences. However, the sentences imposed were somewhat too high compared to previous decisions and draft guidelines, warranting reduction.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences reduced.

Orders

  • Dosanjh's sentence reduced from 15 years to 13 years imprisonment.
  • Gill's sentence reduced from 11 years to 10 years imprisonment.