In court
| Published date | 01 June 2016 |
| Date | 01 June 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550516651006 |
| Subject Matter | In court |
In court
In court
Nigel Stone, Visiting Fellow in the School of Psychology, University of East Anglia,
reviews recent appeal judgments and other judicial developments that inform sen-
tencing and early release.
General sentencing issues
Requirement for a PSR sidestepped: Money laundering
A sentencerhas a statutory duty to considera PSR before passing a custodialsentence
but the limited strength of that obligation in practice is illustrated as follows. In the
course of running a second-hand car sales business (of which J., a long-term asso-
ciate, was a sleeping director) A. induced the victim to make him payments
exceeding £77,000 on the strength of false representations that if she invested in the
business she would share the profits. She had taken out a second mortgage on her
home to fund her ‘investment’. Nearly £48,000 was placed in a bank account in J.’s
name. J. permitted A. to access this account freely to facilitate this fraud, much of the
proceeds beingdissipated through casino gambling in which J. had participated. On
arrest J. had claimed that he had allowed A. to use the bank account simply as a
favour because A. had a poor credit record and could not open an account himself
and that the account had been entirely controlled by A. He said that he had known
nothing of any fraud and had received no money. Aged 45 and a naturalized
British citizen who had come to the United Kingdom in 1993 as a civil war refu-
gee, he had no prior criminal record and worked as a waiter in a restaurant.
On J.’s conviction of possessing criminal property (contrary to the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002 s329), the defence applied for his case to be adjourned for a PSR,
on the basis that, having regard to his previous good character and ‘limited role’ in
the crime, the Crown Court could consider an alternative to immediate custody. The
judge refused, indicating that in his view such a report would not assist. Applying
the relevant sentencing guidelines in respect of money laundering it was accepted
that J.’s offence fell into category A (‘high’) in respect of harm, given the sum
involved, but the judge indicated that he was prepared to accept that J. fell into
Category B (‘medium’) as regards his level of culpability, on the basis that he
believed that J. had suspected rather than known that the money represented pro-
ceeds of criminal conduct. The starting point for such a categorization is 18 months’
custody with a range of 26 weeks to three years imprisonment.
Probation Journal
2016, Vol. 63(2) 235–246
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550516651006
prb.sagepub.com
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
To continue reading
Request your trial