Ravjani & Ors, R. v

In a complex criminal trial, disclosure will not justify a stay unless any failure is materially capable of undermining the prosecution or assisting the defence, and is sufficiently serious to make a fair trial impossible. A summing up must be assessed as a whole; a judge may select the evidence to review if the defence case remains fairly presented.

For missing-trader VAT fraud, the value of identifiable VAT reclaims sought and repaid may provide the most reliable sentencing starting point. A late guilty plea in a lengthy multi-handed trial can still justify substantial credit. A director-disqualification order requires a sufficient basis in the offender’s particular role.

The proceedings arose from an alleged missing trader intra-Community VAT fraud involving Future Communications and related companies. The prosecution alleged that the fraud sought VAT repayments of about £170 million and caused an actual loss of about £100 million.

Dilawar Ravjani and Tamraz Riaz were convicted after trial of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. Rajesh Gathani pleaded guilty to that conspiracy. Roshan Ara Hussain was convicted of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice by creating false documents to explain a £50,000 cash payment. Marshall Boston pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of VAT.

From the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames, the court considered conviction and sentence challenges concerning disclosure, evidential rulings, summing-up fairness, sentencing, a Goodyear indication, and the effect of medical treatment in custody.

Disposition

1. The court refused Dilawar Ravjani’s and Riaz’s renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It refused Boston’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Gathani’s sentence appeal was allowed. The court substituted seven years’ imprisonment for eight years and quashed his director-disqualification order. Hussain was granted limited leave to appeal against conviction; her sentence application was adjourned.

Conviction issues

1. The trial judge was entitled to find that the late-disclosed emails were not disclosable under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. They did not materially assist the defence or undermine the prosecution, whether viewed individually or cumulatively. Even if some items had been strictly disclosable, the court saw no failure sufficiently material to require a stay for abuse of process.

2. The admission of Dilawar Ravjani’s previous dishonesty convictions was not arguably erroneous. They were potentially relevant to dishonesty and propensity. The lack of further particulars did not prevent admission; any unusual feature affecting their relevance could have been placed before the trial court.

3. The challenged conspiracy, guilty-plea, expert-evidence and summing-up directions were legally sound and fair when read as a whole. A judge need not rehearse every item of evidence or every forensic submission in a lengthy trial.

4. The Goodyear indication given to McFarnon did not make it unfair to continue Hussain’s prosecution. The Crown had not accepted that the £50,000 was legitimate, and the indication was expressly confined to McFarnon’s sentence. The Goodyear procedure had been correctly operated.

5. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that Hussain had, after the relevant date, directed the creation of false documents. Her no-case submission was therefore properly rejected.

6. However, it was arguable that cross-examination of Hussain about an unproceeded charge of conspiracy to cheat was inadmissible under sections 98 or 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was obviously prejudicial. That issue warranted a full appeal.

Sentencing

1. Applying R v Jagprit Randhawa & Others [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 53, the scale of VAT reclaims sought and repaid justified the sentencing range for Dilawar Ravjani and Riaz. Their respective sentences of 17 and 13 years were not arguably excessive.

2. Gathani was the least culpable conspirator. His late plea nevertheless deserved substantial credit in the circumstances, consistent with R v Girma [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 53. A nine-year pre-plea sentence, reduced to seven years, was appropriate. There was no sufficient basis for disqualification under section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

3. Boston’s interrupted psychotherapy created additional hardship, but did not render his already merciful two-year custodial sentence excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2012] EWCA Crim 2519, the court varied Gathani’s sentence and quashed his disqualification order; granted Hussain limited leave to appeal against conviction; and otherwise refused the applications before it.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Before HHJ Birts QC, Ravjani and Riaz were convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue; Gathani pleaded guilty to that offence; Hussain was convicted of perverting the course of justice; and Boston pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in fraudulent VAT evasion.