Jagprit Randhawa v The Crown
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | LORD JUSTICE HOOPER |
Judgment Date | 18 January 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Crim 3 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Docket Number | Case No: 201004075 C5 |
Date | 18 January 2012 |
Lord Justice Hooper
Mr Justice Holroyde
and
Mr Justice Supperstone
Case No: 201004075 C5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM the Crown Court sitting at Birmingham
HHJ Inman
T20077898
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Michael Wood QC and Mr Geoffrey Payne for the Appellant
Mr Andrew Munday QC for the Respondent
Hearing date : 14 December 2011
On 13th December 2011, the day of the hearing, we announced our decision that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
We now give our reasons. On 24 June 2010 the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue after a trial in the Crown Court sitting at Birmingham, before HHJ Inman QC and a jury. The conspiracy related to a massive mobile phone MTIC 1 fraud, otherwise known as a carousel fraud. The indictment covered the period from 1 January 2005 to 11 November 2005.
Some idea of the size of the overall fraud is gained from the judge's statement in passing sentence that nearly £16 million of input VAT was reclaimed from HMRC of which some £7 million was repaid. According to the prosecution, the figures are actually higher.
The appellant was involved with Jaspal Singh ("Singh") in the running of a buffer company, Letting Solutions (UK) Ltd ("Lettings"). Both were directors. Singh's application for leave to appeal was refused by us on 14 October 2011, [2011] EWCA Crim 2502. In the judgment refusing leave to appeal we set out the facts and concluded that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant and his co-defendant was overwhelming. It was conceded that an MTIC fraud was in operation involving the companies with which the defendants were involved. The only issue was whether the defendants were knowingly involved in that fraud. As we said when refusing leave to Singh and another defendant, such were the huge sums of money involved and the movements of money together with a diary which was found at the home address of Singh, and a file which was found on the appellant, that it seems likely that the jury would have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the defendants were knowingly involved in the admitted fraud.
The appellant's appeal raises a discrete issue, concerning documents produced by the co-defendant and co-director Singh in the course of restraint proceedings brought against Singh before the trial and relating to what was then the alleged MTIC fraud. On 29 September 2009 another division of this Court presided over by me quashed a variation order made in the restraint proceedings, JS [2009] EWCA Crim 2972. The judgment was, until recently, subject to restrictions on its publication. The Court made an order preventing the publication of the judgment to, amongst other persons, those involved in the prosecution of the appellant and Singh. However a copy was made available to the trial judge. All restrictions have now been lifted.
JS had provided material in the course of the restraint proceedings. We shall call that material "compelled material". Paragraph 9 of the restraint order made against Singh provided that
Subject to any further order of the court any information given in compliance with this order shall only be used:-
i. for the purpose of these proceedings;
ii. if the Defendant is convicted, for the purposes of any confiscation hearing that may take place; and
iii. if a confiscation order is made, for the purposes of enforcing that order, including any receivership proceedings.
9.2. there shall be no disclosure of any material disclosed in compliance with this order to any co-defendant in the criminal proceedings.
An order had been sought and granted in the Crown Court varying paragraph 9 to permit disclosure of the compelled documents to the appellant. This variation order was quashed by this Court.
No further variation order was sought in the restraint proceedings. Thus paragraph 9 prevented any information given in compliance with the restraint order from being used other than for the purpose of the restraint proceedings and prevented disclosure of any material disclosed in compliance with the restraint order to any co-defendant in the criminal proceedings.
Given that those prosecuting the appellant and defending the appellant had not seen the compelled material, HHJ Inman examined the compelled material in order to decide whether any of it might undermine the prosecution's case against the appellant or might assist the appellant in his case. To assist him in this task, he received submissions from the parties. Having reviewed the material, he concluded that the compelled material was not material that might undermine the prosecution's case against the appellant or might assist the appellant in his case.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Hyman (Kenneth) v Audley Matthews and Others [Consolidated Suits]
- McGrath v Minister for Defence
-
DPP v Bowe
...great degree by the utterance? This has been a very, very long trial. Many topics have come and gone, I myself had forgotten about Mr. Gantley's re-examination about this important issue of the note, it has passed me by but it is in the case. The question is will the two defendants, Mr. Bow......
-
Lawlor v Flood
... ... public importance, and in pursuance of such resolution a Tribunal is appointed either by the Crown or by a Secretary of State, then such a Tribunal for certain purposes shall have all the powers, ... ...