Kidd & Anor, R v

Forgery of a will intended to obtain an estate will ordinarily justify immediate custody. The exceptional circumstances capable of avoiding custody were absent where the fraud was planned, pursued through a false supporting affidavit, and maintained until forensic evidence exposed it.

On a sentence appeal, substantial personal mitigation and age do not render a custodial term manifestly excessive where the offending remains a serious and determined fraud.

Mrs Kidd and her daughter, Miss Bianchy, pleaded guilty before North Pembrokeshire Magistrates’ Court to attempting to obtain property by deception. They were committed to Swansea Crown Court, where each received 12 months’ immediate imprisonment.

The offence concerned a forged will purporting to leave an estate valued at £142,345 to Miss Bianchy. The appellants arranged for Miss Bianchy’s sister to swear a false affidavit supporting the will’s authenticity, and initially maintained the deception.

They appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive in light of their personal mitigation, including Mrs Kidd’s age. The central issue was whether the immediate 12-month terms were excessive.

1. Appeals dismissed. The court held that the 12-month immediate custodial sentences, although arguably at the top of the appropriate range, were not manifestly excessive.
2. The principle stated in Lincoln (1994) 15 Cr App R(S) 333, that forgery affecting title to property ordinarily requires immediate custody save in exceptional circumstances, applied with equal force to a forged will. This case was not exceptional. The appellants had taken considerable steps to advance the fraud, including procuring a false and detailed affidavit to support the will.
3. The false affidavit was an aggravating feature. The appellants also continued to deny wrongdoing after the affidavit had been exposed as false, and admitted the fraud only after handwriting evidence was obtained.
4. The fraud was less sophisticated than those considered in Lusher [1995] 16 Cr App R(S) 313 and Morgan [1995] 16 Cr App R(S) 478, and less serious than that in Spillman and Spillman [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 139. It nevertheless remained a serious and determined fraud.
5. The appellants’ bereavement, personal references, medical material and, in Mrs Kidd’s case, age did not justify a reduction in sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2007] EWCA Crim 1998, dismissed both appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Swansea: On 3 May 2007, sentenced each appellant to 12 months’ immediate imprisonment after committal for sentence.
• North Pembrokeshire Magistrates’ Court: On 27 March 2007, accepted the appellants’ guilty pleas to attempting to obtain property by deception and committed them to the Crown Court for sentence.