Greet, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 205 (03 February 2005)

Greet, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 205 (03 February 2005)

The fresh evidence regarding Avery's gambling and alleged thefts, and the Nightingill report, do not render the conviction unsafe. The jury was aware of Avery's criminality, and the new evidence would not have affected the outcome. The unexplained deficiency remains substantial even on the defence's best case. The confiscation order was properly made, as the benefit exceeded the amount that might be realised, and the judge was entitled to refuse further adjournment or legal aid for additional forensic accountancy evidence.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 205
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant/defendant: Michael Hugh Greet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Theft by Solicitor, Forgery, Bankruptcy Offences, Confiscation Order, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Solicitors' Accounts Rules
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Theft by Solicitor Forgery Bankruptcy Offences Confiscation Order Fresh Evidence on Appeal Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Michael Hugh Greet

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence (Nightingill report and evidence on Avery) renders conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order was properly made given the evidence and benefit calculation
  3. 3 Whether trial counsel and accountants failed in their duties to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence regarding Avery's gambling and alleged thefts, and the Nightingill report, do not render the conviction unsafe. The jury was aware of Avery's criminality, and the new evidence would not have affected the outcome. The unexplained deficiency remains substantial even on the defence's best case. The confiscation order was properly made, as the benefit exceeded the amount that might be realised, and the judge was entitled to refuse further adjournment or legal aid for additional forensic accountancy evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal against conviction refused
  • Appeal against confiscation order dismissed