R v Evans (Cheryl)

Date

27 May 1999

Legislation

Theft Act 1968

Keywords

sentencing; specimen counts

Counsel

N Loddenberg for Evans

Solicitors:

unknown.

Judge:

LMantell LJ, Blofeld J, Judge Fabyan Evans.

Court:

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported:

[1999] Crim LR 758, The Times 8 June 1999.

Summary

Evans was involved in housing benefit fraud relating to some 11 basic claims which she repeated a number of times.

She was arraigned on an indictment containing 24 sample counts charging offences of furnishing false information and procuring the execution of securities by deception. She pleaded guilty to four counts and not-guilty to the remainder. The not-guilty pleas were not accepted by the prosecution and Evans was ultimately convicted of the following 20 counts following a trial and then sentenced to 3 years imprisonment concurrent on each count. She was 32 years old at the date of sentence and had two previous convictions for dishonesty.

The trial judge estimated Evan's fraud was worth over £25,000 but because of the specimen counts the jury had only convicted her of fraud involving under £3,000.

Decision:

The Appeal Court noted that

• had every fraudulent cheque been included as a separate offence there would have been 200 counts or more;
• they also regarded it as unrealistic to expect any defendant who has contested a case of this nature, upon being convicted, would ask for offences to be taken into consideration which they have hitherto denied;
• the consequence may well be that a defendant who has pleaded guilty and confessed the full extent of his fraud may be treated more harshly than a defendant who has contested the matter but has only been convicted in respect of so-called specimen counts; and
• the Court of Appeal noted that this was far from satisfactory, but held that it was not within its province to create a solution to the problem and the potential that the 'loophole' may be exploited.

As the judge is only entitled to pass sentence for the charges proved or admitted, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was not entitled to pass sentence on the basis of a loss of £25,000. With some misgivings it therefore quashed the sentence of 3 years concurrent on each count and replaced it with one of 2 years concurrent.