Wiseman v Rex [2023] EWCA Crim 1363 (29 November 2023)

Wiseman v Rex [2023] EWCA Crim 1363 (29 November 2023)

The judge's directions to the jury on knowledge and dishonesty were legally accurate and sufficient, the corrective information regarding the 2016 Trading Standards investigation was properly admitted and adequately limited in scope by judicial direction, and the costs order was justified based on the evidence of means and procedural fairness.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1363
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Climate Wiseman; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Fraud, False Representation, Dishonesty, Costs Order, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Fraud False Representation Dishonesty Costs Order Bad Character Evidence Jury Directions

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Climate Wiseman

Appellant/applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury was properly directed on knowledge and dishonesty under the Fraud Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the introduction of corrective information regarding a prior Trading Standards investigation rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the costs order was manifestly excessive or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions to the jury on knowledge and dishonesty were legally accurate and sufficient, the corrective information regarding the 2016 Trading Standards investigation was properly admitted and adequately limited in scope by judicial direction, and the costs order was justified based on the evidence of means and procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Costs order of £60,072.50 affirmed