Patel, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2689 (25 October 2006)

Patel, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2689 (25 October 2006)

Answering 'No' to a question about convictions after a conditional discharge is not a false representation because, by statute, such a conviction is deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the original proceedings or breach; the statutory language does not support a distinction between 'conviction' and 'convicted' in this context.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 2689
Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: Rupal Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal dismissed; respondent acquitted
Legal Topics
Conditional Discharge, False Representation, Deception, Job Application Disclosures, Spent Convictions
Criminal Law Employment Law Conditional Discharge False Representation Deception Job Application Disclosures Spent Convictions

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

Rupal Patel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ticking 'No' to a conviction question after a conditional discharge constitutes a false representation under s.16 Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'conviction' and 'convicted' in the context of s.14(1) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

Answering 'No' to a question about convictions after a conditional discharge is not a false representation because, by statute, such a conviction is deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the original proceedings or breach; the statutory language does not support a distinction between 'conviction' and 'convicted' in this context.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; respondent acquitted

Orders

  • Respondent stands acquitted as per s.61(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003