R v Richard Collins

Delay in criminal proceedings and prison overcrowding do not, without more, require a substantially reduced or suspended sentence. The sentencing court must assess delay, the offender’s expectations and all mitigation in the context of the seriousness of the offending and the applicable guideline range. A custodial sentence within the reasonable guideline range will not be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive merely because those matters have been taken into account.

The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences of fraud contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. While employed by a property management company, he diverted rental income of approximately £192,000 into accounts controlled by associates.

He received a total sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment on 16 March 2023. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused it. He contended that insufficient weight had been given to the delay between plea and sentence, including an adjourned sentencing hearing after he had prepared his family for a period of custody.

The central issue was whether that delay required a lower or suspended sentence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Delay in criminal proceedings was regrettable, but it did not itself require a substantially reduced or suspended sentence. R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 did not establish such an automatic consequence, even where prison overcrowding was also relied upon.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess delay and the applicant’s unmanaged expectations as mitigation alongside the gravity of the fraud. The judge had also honoured the prosecution’s earlier concession that culpability was medium, despite identifying features ordinarily placing culpability in the high bracket, including breach of trust and sophistication.
4. The fraud was a sustained course of conduct involving losses of about £200,000. It fell within category B harm. The applicable Sentencing Council guideline had a starting point of three years’ custody and a range of 18 months to four years. The judge considered all mitigation, including delay, before selecting 42 months and applying credit for the guilty plea to reach 33 months.
5. The applicant accepted little responsibility. The wealth of those defrauded and the absence of impact on their relationship with the employer did not mitigate the offences. The resulting sentence fell well within the reasonable guideline range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 1206.
• Single judge — Refused permission to appeal against sentence.
• Sentencing court (not identified) — Sentenced the applicant to 33 months’ imprisonment on 16 March 2023.