Singh-Mann & Ors v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

On 10th October 2012 in the Crown Court at Harrow before Judge Greenwood and a jury, the appellants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud. On 29th October 2012, the judge sentenced the appellants: two appellants aged 60 and 50 were sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and disqualified as company directors for eight years, each ordered to pay prosecution costs of £6,500. The third appellant, aged 41, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and similarly disqualified for eight years.

Each appellant appealed their convictions by leave of a single judge. One appellant applied for an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was initially refused but later granted due to late receipt of documentation. Another appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence.

The appeals focused on whether the trial judge properly summed up the case to the jury, particularly whether the summing up adequately rehearsed the evidence and arguments relied on by the appellants in support of their defences, despite none of them giving or calling evidence.

At trial, the appellants had been directors or officers of a property investment company, referred to as Company A, which was in administration at the time. Company A had subsidiaries involved in adult gaming centres. The appellants were implicated in a scheme involving fraudulent loan applications based on false tenancy agreements purportedly with a bona fide betting company, Company B.

Evidence at trial included testimony from various witnesses including employees of Company A and representatives of the banks involved. It was alleged that false leases were used to secure loans from multiple financial institutions, resulting in substantial losses when Company A went into administration.

The prosecution case was that the appellants were parties to a dishonest agreement to obtain refinancing by falsely representing tenancy agreements with named tenants. The defence cases were that the appellants did not have knowledge of or involvement in the fraud and that the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial judge's summing up was challenged on grounds that it emphasized the prosecution case, failed to adequately summarise the defence cases, omitted certain evidence and submissions, and lacked coherent structure and balance.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge properly summed up the case to the jury, including adequate rehearsal of the evidence and defence arguments.
2. Whether the summing up was fair and balanced, particularly in relation to the appellants' defences.
3. Whether the convictions are safe in light of the alleged deficiencies in the summing up.
4. Whether the sentences and disqualification orders imposed were appropriate and correctly determined.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Mann's Arguments

• The judge's summing up was unfairly biased toward the prosecution, stressing its strengths and failing to adequately summarise the defence case or evidence relied on by Mann.
• The summing up lacked coherent structure and was delivered at a speed that made it difficult to follow.
• The judge made strong comments implying guilt based on Mann’s role as company owner and signatory without sufficiently explaining that ownership and signatures did not necessarily imply guilt.
• The judge refused to include certain evidence in the summing up, such as the use of post-it notes indicating where Mann was to sign documents and evidence relating to another property ("Sittingbourne") suggesting possible involvement of another individual in similar fraud.
• It was argued that Mann may have signed documents without reading them and that this possibility was not adequately presented to the jury.
• The judge’s remarks regarding a prosecution witness’s denial of involvement were allegedly misleading, effectively requiring the jury to accept the witness’s account without considering defence challenges.
• Concerns were raised about the non-calling of two solicitors who might have had relevant evidence, and the judge’s failure to address this in the summing up.

Appellant Panchal's Arguments

• Panchal contended he was not a director but was close to Mann and had ceded his role to a newcomer, suggesting that others were responsible for the fraud.
• He argued that lies told by him were made after the loans were arranged to try to save the company and did not indicate involvement in the fraud.
• The judge’s summing up inadequately explained Panchal’s defence case and failed to provide proper balance by omitting defence submissions.

Appellant Chahal's Arguments

• The judge failed to remind the jury adequately of Chahal’s defence and the evidence supporting it, particularly his limited involvement and lack of knowledge of the fraudulent leases.
• Chahal argued he was not a directing mind or decision maker and played only an administrative role, with no involvement in funding arrangements or meetings.
• The judge did not sufficiently highlight evidence of Chahal’s lack of competence and changing role within the company.
• The significance of rent-free periods on leases was not adequately explained in the summing up, which was relevant to Chahal’s knowledge of tenancy arrangements.
• The defence contended there was no direct evidence that Chahal possessed original false leases or was aware of the fraud.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the well-established legal principles governing the judge’s duty to sum up the evidence and arguments fairly and comprehensively. It noted that where defendants do not testify or call evidence, the judge's role is generally limited to summarising the prosecution evidence, any relevant pre-trial statements, and significant points made in defence counsel’s speeches.

The court analysed the trial judge's summing up and found that although it lacked a coherent structure and failed to organise the evidence issue-by-issue, it sufficiently covered the prosecution case and referenced the evidence relied on by the appellants. The judge reminded the jury of the prosecution’s allegations against each appellant and referred to relevant evidence, including admissions and witness testimony.

The court accepted that the judge did not adequately summarise the defence arguments or highlight certain pieces of evidence favourable to the appellants, such as the use of post-it notes for signatures, the "Sittingbourne" evidence, or the defence submissions regarding the roles and knowledge of the appellants. However, it concluded that the nature of the defences, which relied heavily on challenging the prosecution’s proof rather than asserting affirmative facts, limited the judge’s duty to elaborate extensively on defence case.

The court further reasoned that the jury would have understood the core issue: whether each appellant knew about and participated in the fraud. The judge’s failure to provide a focused summary of defence submissions did not render the verdicts unsafe given the strength and straightforwardness of the prosecution case.

Regarding sentencing and disqualification, the court found the trial judge had correctly identified the seriousness of the offence, the substantial financial loss, and the roles played by the appellants. The sentences imposed were within the appropriate range under the relevant sentencing guidelines, and the disqualification periods were justified given the gravity of the offences.

Holding and Implications

The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The court held that despite deficiencies in the trial judge’s summing up, the verdicts were safe and the appellants’ convictions stood.

The renewed applications to appeal against sentence were refused. The sentences and disqualification orders imposed were found to be appropriate in principle and proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

The decision directly affects the appellants by affirming their convictions, sentences, and disqualification periods. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning summing up and sentencing in fraud cases.