R v Hawkins (Paul)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1996 |
| Date | 31 July 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Connell
Criminal procedure - leave to appeal out of time - whether exceptional circumstances
A self-confessed mortgage fraudster failed in an application for a seven-month extension of time to apply for leave to appeal out of time against conviction after the House of Lords, in another case, had decided that counts under section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 to which he had pleaded guilty had been invoked for a purpose for which it was never designed.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, refused an application by Paul Nigel Hawkins, aged 38, from conviction in November 1994 at Bradford Crown Court (Judge Cockroft) after pleas of guilty to five counts of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 15(1) of the 1968 Act, two counts of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the 1968 Act and one count of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
He was sentenced to two years imprisonment concurrent on each count. Three counts to which he pleaded not guilty were ordered to lie on the file.
On appeal sentences of 18 months concurrent were substituted.
Section 17 of the 1968 Act provides: "(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another … (b) in furnishing information for any purpose produced or makes use of any account, or any such record of document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may b e misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular … shall … be liable to imprisonment.
Mr R C S Holt for the applicant; Mr David Perry and Mr John Muir for the Crown.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that in summer 1990 the applicant began to purchase houses in the Huddersfield area, his aim being to buy the houses and then renovate them and let them out to tenants.
The applicant did not himself possess funds with which to buy and renovate the houses and accordingly he approached a number of building societies, falsely pretending that he was acquiring the houses for his own occupation.
In making the applications he provided false particulars as to his name, age, place of residence, employment, income and gave false references.
In that way he was able to acquire some houses. He made some additional applications which were unsuccessful.
He received advances which amounted to something over £300,000 from various building societies for the purchase of those houses. He also received, it was said, sums from the local authority by way of housing benefit, but that was in issue.
At the time of the trial arrears had built up in certain of the advances and he found himself in difficulty with others as a result of the recession in the property market. It was impossible to put any precise figure on the losses of the building societies had suffered, doubtless it was a substantial sum.
His Lordship turned first to the substance of this application in reference the two counts under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Lewis
...an extension of time ought properly to be granted. In that regard, we have in mind both the observations of Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Hawkins [1997] 1 Cr App R 234, and the observations made by the editor of Archbold in paragraph 7–182, which, as it appears to us, correctly summarise t......
-
Jean Pierre Bestel and Others v R
...Crim LR 571). Long periods of delay will require cogent explanation. 10 We are not, however, limited to our own experience. The Court in Hawkins [1997] 1 Cr App R 234 (Lord Bingham CJ, Owen and Connell JJ), at page 239, accepted the description by counsel for the respondent, Mr Perry, of t......
-
R v Budimir and another; Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council (No. 2)
...unless substantial injustice has been done. Among many authorities to this effect, we note R v Mitchell [1977] 65 Cr App R195 and 189, R v Hawkins [1997] 1 Cr App R234 at p240, R v Campbell (Colin Frederick) [1997] 1 Cr App R199 at 206 E, R v Benjafield [2006] 1AC 1099, R v Kansal (No 2) ......
-
R v Ramzan
...to conduct that investigation remained available there would be substantial injustice to the Appellant if leave were refused. 32 In Hawkins [1997] 1 Cr.App.R 234, the Defendant had been convicted, upon plea of guilty, of offences of obtaining property by deception prior to the decision of t......
-
Fresh Evidence and Factual Innocence in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal
...n. 8.12. For a discussion on the reasons for granting an extension of time, see the judgment given by Lord Bingham CJ in RvHawkins[1997] 1 Cr App R 234.13. The CCRC was established by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 after a recommendation by the Royal Commission on CriminalJustice, replacing w......
-
‘Unsafe’ Convictions: Defining and Compensating Miscarriages of Justice
...Registrar. For a discussion on the reasons for granting an extension of time see thejudgment given by Lord Bingham CJ in RvHawkins [1997] 1 Cr App R 234.7 Earl of Caithness, HL Deb, col 739 29 October 1987.8 [2002] 1 W L R 1857.9R (on the application of Nicholas Mullen) vSecretary of State ......