Lal, R. v

A sentence imposed within the applicable fraud guideline will not be arguable as manifestly excessive where the judge properly identifies high culpability, places the loss in the correct category, and makes an appropriate adjustment to the starting point for the actual loss.

Apparent disparity with a co-offender’s sentence does not establish that an applicant’s sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. That remains so even if the co-offender may have received a favourable sentence.

The applicant, a bank employee, was convicted at Harrow Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud. He had assisted a planned fraud by abusing his position to transfer and dissipate funds from genuine customers’ accounts. The total loss was about £200,000.

He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. His application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused by a single judge, and he renewed it before the full court. He contended that the sentence was too high within the fraud guideline range and that it created unjust disparity with the sentence imposed on a co-conspirator.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. There was no arguable ground that the four-year sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had properly treated the offending as one of high culpability. The applicant had abused a position of trust as a bank employee, and the fraud was sophisticated and significantly planned. The court also considered that the judge could properly have identified the applicant’s leading role in group offending as a further high-culpability feature.

3. The loss placed the offence in category 2 of the Sentencing Council definitive guideline for fraud, bribery and money laundering offences. Although that category had a five-year starting point based on a loss of £300,000, the judge reduced the starting point to four years to reflect the actual loss of about £200,000. Effective good character did not make the resulting sentence excessive, particularly given the applicant’s unsuccessful attempt at trial to blame others.

4. There was no unjust disparity with the sentence imposed on Bharya. Bharya had pleaded guilty, had further offending and relevant convictions, but had also given helpful prosecution evidence. In any event, even a comparatively favourable sentence for a co-offender would not render this applicant’s properly assessed sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2017] EWCA Crim 373.
• Crown Court at Harrow: The applicant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud on 27 April 2016 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on 8 June 2016.
• Single judge: The application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused.