Good, R. v

A co-defendant’s guilty plea may properly be put before a jury where its limited evidential value against another defendant is made clear. The admission of previous convictions remains a matter for the trial judge’s lawful exercise of discretion. Fresh evidence should not be admitted on appeal where it was substantially available at trial and reveals no sustainable defect in the presentation of the defence. A conviction following a fair trial will be upheld where the evidence, directions and summing-up disclose no arguable error affecting its safety.

The applicant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that companies he owned conducted a publishing fraud by falsely claiming emergency-services connections and wide magazine distribution, and by selling inflated advertising.

He sought leave to appeal conviction and sentence. His complaints concerned legal representation, judicial conduct, the admission of his previous convictions and a co-defendant’s guilty plea, alleged omissions in the evidence, proposed fresh evidence, and sentence. The court considered whether any ground rendered the conviction unsafe or the sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence was refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the application was wholly without merit. The conviction for conspiracy to defraud was safe.

2. It was correct in law to admit the guilty plea of the co-defendant, Doran. The jury was thereby able to focus on whether the applicant knew of, and participated in, the conspiracy to which Doran had pleaded. The plea’s limited value in the case against the applicant had been made clear.

3. The trial judge admitted the applicant’s previous convictions by applying the correct principles and within the proper scope of judicial discretion. There was no fault in the four-day summing-up, which included legal directions, or in the judge’s questioning of the applicant. The questions were directed to clarifying his answers for the jury and did not demonstrate bias or improper interference.

4. The proposed fresh evidence consisted principally of material from satisfied clients and evidence that the companies also conducted legitimate trade. It was largely available at trial. The court was satisfied that the defence case had been properly and fully advanced, so there was no sustainable basis to receive fresh evidence on appeal.

5. The eight-year sentence followed the applicable fraud sentencing guidelines. The judge properly took account of the £4.6 million loss, the applicant’s previous convictions, and personal mitigation. No error in sentencing was shown.

6. Having given the applicant an opportunity to make representations, the court made a 28-day loss of time order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence: [2016] EWCA Crim 921.
• Liverpool Crown Court: on 3 March 2015, convicted the applicant of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.