6 Oct 1999
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed: applicant provided no valid excuse for delay and the appeal had no merit because offences involved forgery and identity fraud, return of goods warranted little credit and the sentences were not excessive; accordingly leave refused and custody credit was adjusted by excluding 3 months.
11 Mar 1998
The Court held the sentencing judge had exercised meticulous, lawful discretion in categorising offences, fixing starting points, applying discounts for guilty pleas and good character, and ordering some consecutive terms; the aggregate 4-year sentence was not wrong in principle and should be upheld.
28 Oct 1997
The Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the consecutive assault sentence by one month because the District Judge, unaware of the severe collateral immigration consequence (loss of US permanent resident status), would have made a suitable adjustment; there was no error in the sentencing approach but a one‑month reduction was necessary to avoid disproportionate additional punishment, resulting in a total sentence of 17 months imprisonment.
25 Jun 1996
The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant made false representations inducing payments and dishonestly appropriated the sums with intent to permanently deprive the owners; charges were properly framed as theft under the principles in R v Gomez and applying the Ghosh test, so the convictions were safe and the leave to appeal was refused.
7 Jul 1993
Leave to appeal refused because the trial judge lawfully exercised his discretion to proceed without the unavailable prosecution witness, his extensive questioning of a prosecution witness was judicial and impartial, and the evidence supported reasonable inferences of intent to deceive and dishonesty sufficient to sustain the convictions on Charges 5 and 6.
10 Apr 1990
The trial judge erred in principle by treating multiple distinct offences as a single transaction and by failing adequately to apply the totality principle and to reflect the seriousness of a prolonged, complex and large-scale fraudulent scheme; the Court of Appeal therefore varied sentences upwards for the principal defendants (D1, D2, D4 and D6) while leaving D7's suspended sentence undisturbed, and rejected reliance on material not placed before the sentencing basis for the defendants.
10 Sept 1985
The conviction was unsafe because evidence was ambiguous as to whether the cheque was operative security and the manager did not credibly deny being told the account was closed; given the benefit of the doubt to the appellant no one could rightly regard the cheque as a good and valid order and therefore the conviction must be set aside and the appellant acquitted; a retrial was inappropriate as it would merely give the prosecution a second bite at the cherry.
23 Sept 1976
Total sentences of 15 months imprisonment were excessive given the light nature of the deception (false claim of employer rather than false claim of competence); appropriate disposition was three months imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently.