Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

No obligation to give detailed direction on the meaning of “facilitates”, where defendant found guilty of facilitating sham marriages for immigration purposes

R v Ali [2015] EWCA Crim 43

A jury had been entitled to find that an immigration solicitor had helped clients to secure immigration status in the UK by facilitating sham marriages, contrary to the Immigration Act 1971, s 25. The judge had not been obliged to give a detailed direction on the meaning of “facilitates” in s 25.

Variation of sexual offences prevention order requiring the wearing of a location monitoring device was not contrary to ECHR, art 8

R (Richards) v Teeside Magistrates' Court & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 7

Varying a sexual offences prevention order to require the wearing of a location monitoring device or electronic tag while away from the home address of the person subject to it came within the powers conferred by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the interference with that person’s private life under ECHR, art 8 was “in accordance with the law”.

Sentence following conviction of conspiring to cheat the public revenue

R v Dosanjh & Ors [2013] EWCA Crim 2366

The appellants had been convicted of conspiring to cheat the public revenue, and appealed against sentence. The offence of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue retained its established role in the prosecution of revenue cases. It was used to supplement the statutory framework and was recognised as the appropriate charge for the small number of the most serious revenue frauds, where the statutory offences did not adequately reflect the criminality involved and where a sentence at large was more appropriate than one subject to statutory restrictions.