R v Gill (Sewa Singh); R v Gill (Paramjit Singh)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date03 October 2003
Neutral Citation[2001] EWCA Crim 2256,[2003] EWCA Crim 2256,[2003] EWCA Crim 2730
Docket NumberNo: 2001/1276/Y2,No: 200202208/2211/Z2,Case Nos: 2002/02208/Z2 and 2002/02211/Z2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date03 October 2003
Gary Lusher

[2001] EWCA Crim 2256


Lord Justice Longmore

Sir Swinton Thomas and

His Honour Judge Findlay Baker Qc (Sitting as a Judge of The Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

No: 2001/1276/Y2



Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2

MISS N MOORE appeared on behalf of the Appellant


On 26th January 2001 in the Crown Court at Grimsby the appellant pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 4 on the indictment lay against him and was remanded in custody for reports. On 23rd February he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Jenkins on count 1, an offence of false imprisonment, to serve three years' imprisonment, and on count 4, for an offence of affray, to two years' imprisonment concurrent. One other offence, which was an offence of the theft of a stereo, was taken into consideration. The total sentence was accordingly three years' imprisonment. He appeals against his sentence with the leave of the single judge.


The appellant was involved in a relationship with a Mrs Tilling, which was a relationship which was on and off over a period of about four years. On 23rd November 2000, after she had not seen him for about six weeks because he was working away, they agreed to meet in Washdyke Lane, Immingham, Humberside. At about 6 pm Mrs Tilling, her two children and two of their friends were picked up by the appellant in his car and he drove them to the sea wall. They subsequently returned to Mrs Tilling's flat.


During the evening the appellant began drinking at about 10.30. Mrs Tilling suggested that he should go and he said he had had too much to drink. She then made him a cup of tea and he went on drinking. The children's friends left and it was alleged by the Crown that the appellant then bolted the door and said "I'm doing a seige". The children began to cry and Mrs Tilling took them to the bedroom. About 5 minutes later he shouted for the four of them to come out again, which they did. Two of them ran past him, unbolted the door and ran out. He rebolted the door behind them. He then went to the kitchen and returned carrying two knives to where Mrs Tilling and Kirsty were sitting, the latter crying and shaking. He then called the police on his mobile telephone. He went to the front door and was heard moving things around before he returned to the lounge. He told the police on the telephone that they had better come and then telephoned Mrs Tilling's former husband and told him he had better come as he had barred all the doors and had knives. As he left the room again he telephoned his sister and said he knew that he was going to prison. At that point Mrs Tilling took the two knives and hid them.


The police then arrived and asked him to open the door. He said that it was barricaded and barred, threatened to stab the first officer to come in and to turn on the gas and blow up the flat.


The officers were initially unsuccessful in their attempt to force open the door. They eventually broke a window and could see that large items of furniture had been piled behind the door. The appellant, holding a knife, then threatened them again. As officers reached through to open the window the appellant ran at them and he was sprayed with CS gas, causing him to back away. He returned to the window and was sprayed again and he then went back into the lounge. He shouted to the police that if they came in and tended to his eyes he would then put the knife down. The front door was then opened, the lounge door kicked in and he was forcibly restrained.


When he entered his plea on 26th January 2001 he expressly stated that he had not barricaded the door and his plea was accepted on that basis. Judge Readihough who heard the case on that day indicated that this would not make any difference to the length of the sentence and a Newton hearing would not be required.


When he came to pass sentence the learned judge gave him credit for his plea. He said that it had been a frightening ordeal for the family in the course of which threats were uttered and knives were displayed. He said that in an incident of this sort the matter must be firmly dealt with and he pointed out correctly that Mrs Tilling had been assaulted by the appellant on a previous occasion.


The appellant is 35 years old. He has no less than 31 previous convictions involving 109 offences mainly for dishonesty and road traffic offences. On 12th May 1999 he was convicted of two offences of battery. In the first in September 1998 he broke the glass of a door and punched the female occupant in the face causing a black eye. During the second in December 1998 he headbutted, punched and kicked a woman causing bruising to the eye, arms and body. One of those offences was committed against Mrs Tilling, the victim in this case, and that in our judgment is a relevant factor.


There was a pre-sentence report which the learned judge had and which of course we have read.


In the course of her succinct and persuasive submissions, Miss Moore rightly said that on this occasion the appellant had not used any violence and the offence was not in any way pre-planned.


Miss Moore makes no complaint in relation to the sentence of two years' imprisonment for the offence of affray. However, she does submit that the sentence of three years' imprisonment for the offence of false imprisonment was excessive and in support of that submission she invited our attention to the relevant authorities.


If the offence of false imprisonment stood alone, in our judgment there might be substance in Miss Moore's submission. However, it does not. This case illustrates a difficulty in which a sentencing judge is placed concerning consecutive and concurrent sentences arising out of what is in effect a single incident. In our judgment this was a single incident and the judge was right to impose concurrent sentences. Having come to that conclusion he then had to make up his mind as to the appropriate sentence for the totality of the appellant's criminality. The judge indicated at the outset of the sentencing comments that he considered that a sentence of three years in total was appropriate. If that was correct then it does not matter how the sentence is made up, providing of course it is a lawful sentence.


In our judgment, as the learned judge himself said, this was a very serious case involving a woman and children who had been threatened and no doubt made very frightened and serious threats were made against the police officers. Giving full weight to the mitigation, in particular the plea of guilty, and the factors which Miss Moore has relied upon, in our judgment the overall sentence of three years' imprisonment in relation to the false imprisonment and the affray was not in any way excessive. Accordingly the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.

Sewa Singh Gill
Paramjit Singh Gill

[2003] EWCA Crim 2256


Lord Justice Clarke

Mr Justice Astill and

The Common Serjeant

Case Nos: 2002/02208/Z2 and 2002/02211/Z2





Royal Courts of Justice


London, WC2A 2LL

Mr Anthony Abell and Ms Valerie Charbit (instructed by the Commisioners of Inland Revenue) for the Respondent

Mr Phillip Sapsford QC (instructed by Stringer Saul) for the Appellants

Lord Justice Clarke



This is the judgement of the court. The appellants are brothers. Sewa Singh is now aged 52 and Paramjit Singh is now 40. On 15 March 2002 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before His Honour Judge Bing and a jury, after a lengthy trial, Sewa Gill was convicted of six counts of cheating the Inland Revenue (the Revenue"), namely counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, and Paramjit Gill was convicted of three counts of cheating the Revenue, namely counts 7, 9 and 1Sewa Gill was acquitted of counts 1 and 5 and found not guilty by direction of count 12 and Paramjit Gill was acquitted of count 13. All those counts also alleged cheating the Revenue. On 15 May 2002, Sewa Gill was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each count concurrent and Paramjit Gill was sentenced to twenty months imprisonment on each count concurrent.


The appellants appeal against conviction pursuant to leave granted by the single judge, Sachs J, who granted leave on one ground only. They renew their applications for leave to appeal on the remaining three grounds. Paramjit Gill's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by Sachs J and has not been renewed.


The ground upon which leave was granted relates to the use made at the trial of answers given by the appellants at an interview which took place on 8 March 1995. It was a type of interview which is sometimes known as a "Hansard interview". The other three grounds in respect of which leave to appeal is sought allege misdirection by the judge in respect of the law of domicile and the legal concept of cheat and a failure by the judge to give clear directions as to the issues which the jury had to decide in relation to each count on the indictment. Mr Sapsford made detailed oral submissions in relation to the Hansard interview and domicile but otherwise relied upon the written materials before the court. Before considering each of the grounds relied upon we summarise the underlying facts and issues at the trial.

The Underlying Facts and Issues


This is taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT