Randhawa, R v

A sentence within the applicable fraud guideline range may nevertheless be manifestly excessive where the loss lies at the bottom of the relevant financial bracket and substantial personal mitigation has not been given proper weight.

When considering suspension of a custodial sentence, the court must consider whether immediate custody is necessary and the likely harm to others. A low risk of reoffending and significant harmful effects on dependent children and vulnerable parents may justify suspension, even for sustained and serious fraud, where immediate custody is not the only appropriate punishment.

Restrictions caused by the COVID-19 lockdown did not affect a sentence imposed before that lockdown.

The appellant was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of 16 offences of fraud by false representation, contrary to sections 1(1) and 1(2)(a) of the Fraud Act 2006. The fraud concerned false claims over about two years for local-authority nursery funding. Its value exceeded £20,000 but was no more than about £25,000.

On 20 February 2020, the judge imposed concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence. She contended that the reduction from the guideline starting point did not reflect the low end of the loss bracket or her mitigation, including her caring responsibilities. She also relied on the impact of custody upon her children and parents, and on COVID-19 restrictions.

The central issues were whether the term was manifestly excessive and whether a substituted 24-month term should be suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the concurrent 28-month sentences and substituted concurrent sentences of 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years from 20 February 2020.

2. The offending was serious. It involved persistent, planned misuse of public funds intended to support disadvantaged families. The appellant had shown neither remorse nor acceptance of responsibility. Nevertheless, the judge’s reduction from the three-year starting point did not properly reflect that the loss was only just above £20,000, the bottom of the applicable £20,000–£100,000 bracket, and the substantial mitigation. The 28-month term was therefore manifestly excessive; 24 months was appropriate.

3. The court then considered suspension under the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guideline. No factor against suspension was present. Although serious, the fraud was not so serious that only immediate custody could provide appropriate punishment. The appellant was at low risk of reoffending.

4. Custody also caused significant harm to others. The appellant was the primary carer of two children with health difficulties and had substantial responsibilities for vulnerable parents. The reported behavioural and psychological effects of her imprisonment reinforced the conclusion that the term should be suspended. No additional requirement or supervision period was necessary, given the five months already served and her constructive conduct in prison.

5. R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 did not apply. The sentence had been imposed before the COVID-19 lockdown, so its restrictions did not affect the sentencing exercise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 24-month suspended sentence: [2020] EWCA Crim 1071.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: Following convictions on 23 and 24 January 2020, imposed concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment on 20 February 2020.