Case No. EWCA-Crim-2366
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Case No. EWCA-Crim-2366

Fecha: 17-Dic-2013

Meehan

& Others) [2006] EWCA Crim 3254. In Meehan the prosecution appealed against 4 sentences on the basis that they were unduly lenient. All of the defendants had been “buffer” traders in MTIC frauds with losses to HMRC of between £24 and 28 million. Giving the judgment of the Court at paragraph 18, Latham L.J. stated that:“Very substantial sums of money have been obtained in cases such as these, and were obtained in these cases. Those who organise such fraudulent activity can and should now expect, in our view, sentences well into double figures after trial.” 46.In relation to those who fell to be sentenced on the basis that they ran “buffer” companies, he continued: “In our judgment the right bracket for this type of offending, with the amount of money involved in these cases, after a plea of not guilty, would have been six to eight years. That would seem to us to reflect more adequately the seriousness of the activity and the need to deter people from being involved in such activity which is temptingly easy to become involved in.” 47.Mr Christie hoped to persuade us that Gill fell far more into the “buffer” than the main organiser category. Unlike the appellants in Randhawa who were main organisers and committed other offences, Gill was lower down the chain and a man of previously positively good character. Not only had he never been convicted or cautioned (or even arrested) for any criminal offence, he was able to call eight character witnesses to testify to his reputation for hard work, integrity, trustworthiness, generosity and willingness to put himself out to help others. Ground 5 Chahal: manifestly excessive 48.Mr Hammond for Chahal acknowledged that conspirators of this kind may often boast a previous good character and to little avail. Having adopted the general arguments of others, his individual argument was straightforward: given the appellant’s role in and benefit from the fraud, 9 years was manifestly excessive, even having regard to the high deterrent sentences upheld by the Court of Appeal for this type of MTIC fraud.