Owoo, R v

A sentence for sustained, planned and sophisticated fraud will not be manifestly excessive where it falls within the applicable guideline range and reflects the absence of credit for a guilty plea. An appellate court must nevertheless correct an unlawful ancillary order. Where the dates of offending did not permit a victim surcharge order, the order must be quashed, although the custodial sentences remain unaffected.

The applicant was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court on 20 May 2016 of five fraud offences and one offence of possessing an identity document with improper intention. He received a total of four years’ imprisonment and a victim surcharge order of £120.

After the single judge refused his out-of-time applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, he renewed to the Full Court only his application concerning sentence. He contended that the sentence was harsh and manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether the victim surcharge order was lawful having regard to the dates of the offending.

1. Appeal allowed to a strictly limited extent. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, solely in order to quash the £120 victim surcharge order.
2. The surcharge order was unlawful. Having regard to the dates of the offending, no victim surcharge order should have been made. It was therefore necessary to correct that technical sentencing error.
3. The challenge to the custodial sentences had no merit. The fraud was planned, sophisticated and committed over several years. It involved false documents and dishonest gains exceeding £146,000.
4. The applicant had no previous convictions, but he had not pleaded guilty and obtained no associated reduction. The single judge’s assessment of the fraud guideline, which placed the offending within Category 2A and identified a range of three to six years, confirmed that the total sentence of four years was within the acceptable range and was not manifestly excessive.
5. The prison sentences remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. Allowed the appeal only by quashing the unlawful victim surcharge order.
• Single judge: Refused the applicant’s applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 20 May 2016, convicted the applicant of five fraud offences and one identity-document offence, and imposed a total of four years’ imprisonment together with a £120 victim surcharge order.