R v Hugh Lansdell

A sentence for fraud by abuse of position will not be open to challenge merely because the offender has compelling personal mitigation, including having been deceived in a related fraud, where the sentencing judge has fully taken that mitigation into account. In assessing whether sentence is excessive, the court may consider the applicable guideline category and range, the scale and duration of offending, the harm caused, and the credit allowed for a late guilty plea. A sentence below the applicable guideline range may properly reflect substantial mitigation and may be lenient notwithstanding the offender’s personal losses and ill health.

The applicant, a former senior solicitor, pleaded guilty at Norwich Crown Court to fraud by abuse of position after stealing just under £2 million of client money in 72 transactions over about two years. He had used the money after falling victim to an advance-fee lottery fraud and had concealed the discrepancies by lying to staff, partners and clients.

He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. His renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence contended that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation and that remarks made when he changed his plea were inconsistent with the later sentence.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The proposed appeal against the four-year sentence was not reasonably arguable, and the application for legal representation was also refused.
2. The offence fell within category 1A of the applicable Sentencing Council guideline. Its starting point was seven years’ imprisonment and its category range was five to eight years. The Recorder had not increased the sentence to reflect that the loss was almost double the £1 million harm figure underlying the starting point.
3. The Recorder had fully considered the applicant’s substantial mitigation. This included his lack of previous convictions, good character, community standing, personal losses, ill health, vulnerability in custody, and the fact that he had himself been deceived by an advance-fee fraud.
4. The Recorder made the greatest available downward adjustment of two years, producing five years before credit for the guilty plea. He then allowed a 20 per cent reduction although the plea was entered four days before trial. The resulting four-year sentence was at the bottom of the guideline range and, if anything, lenient.
5. The remarks at the plea hearing gave no sentencing promise. Although the Recorder expressed empathy and identified available mitigation, he correctly stated that all sentencing options remained open. Any expectation of a non-custodial outcome was therefore unfounded.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence and for legal representation refused in [2024] EWCA Crim 147.
• Crown Court at Norwich: the applicant pleaded guilty on 18 May 2023 and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on 22 September 2023.