R v Maria Martha Blaauw

On sentencing for multiple frauds, repayments do not by themselves determine seriousness. The court must consider intended loss as well as actual loss. A reduction in category may be available where harm was only a risk of loss, but it is not required where the evidence establishes significant personal distress and other impact. A sentence may exceed the guideline starting point to reflect high culpability and totality. Age, ill-health and absence of previous convictions require consideration but do not automatically justify suspension. A technical error in sequencing mitigation and guilty plea credit does not invalidate a sentence where the defendant received no less, and in fact greater, credit. Appellate interference requires a sentence to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant, aged 76, pleaded guilty to four fraud offences committed against her daughter over more than 12 years. The offences involved bank accounts, loans, benefits and school fees, with an aggregate fraud value of just under £50,000. Most of the money had subsequently been repaid.

The Crown Court at Isleworth treated the offending as Category 3, with a starting point of 36 months, increased the figure to 40 months for culpability and totality, and imposed 26 months’ imprisonment after credit for the guilty plea and mitigation. A single judge refused permission to appeal. The applicant renewed her application, arguing that the sentence was excessive and should have been suspended.

1. Outcome. The renewed application was refused. The sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Loss and categorisation. The eventual repayments did not determine the seriousness of the fraud. The sentencing guideline required regard to what was intended as well as to actual loss. Where the harm was only a risk of loss, the circumstances could justify reducing the categorisation from Category 3 to Category 4. That reduction was not justified here. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the victim personal statement and was entitled to find considerable personal distress and other impact.
3. Culpability and totality. The offences involved sophisticated conduct, significant planning and offending over a sustained period. The aggregate value was just under £50,000, falling within Category 3, whose starting point was 36 months. The judge was entitled to increase the sentence to 40 months to reflect the high culpability features and the totality of the offending.
4. Mitigation and guilty plea. The correct sequence was to apply mitigation before considering the limited credit for the guilty plea. Although the judge used the reverse sequence, the applicant received a greater reduction by way of guilty plea credit than she would otherwise have received. The 10-month reduction for mitigation was reasonable, having regard to her age, lack of previous convictions, health conditions and repayments. The judge was also entitled to take account of minimal, if any, remorse.
5. The applicant’s age and health did not make imprisonment inappropriate. The proposed argument for suspension depended on a lower sentence, and the sentence imposed could not properly be criticised.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application against sentence.
• Single judge: Refused permission on the papers.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: Sentenced the applicant to 26 months’ imprisonment on four counts of fraud.