Daim, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant sought renewal of his application for leave to appeal a sentence of four years and four months imposed by Judge Reid at the Inner London Crown Court on 17 June 2025, following pleas of guilty to 11 counts of fraud.

The Applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud on 24 February 2025 and to nine further counts on 6 June 2025. The offending was substantially similar across counts. The scheme involved advertising properties on websites, inviting viewings, sending electronic tenancy documentation and inducing prospective tenants to pay substantial sums in advance. The Applicant used Company A to conduct the frauds.

The first offence involved Victim 1, who transferred £19,730 on 18 March 2024 after being sent a DocuSign contract. The second offence involved two prospective tenants (Victim 2 and Victim 3) who together transferred £19,730; one of them subsequently recovered her money from her bank.

Further offences related to three advertised properties. Nine additional victims (Victim 4 through Victim 12) were identified with the following dates and losses (as set out in the opinion):

• Victim 4: £19,500 (between 14 November and 26 November 2023)
• Victim 5: £19,500 (between 18 and 23 June 2023)
• Victim 6: £16,500 (3 November 2023)
• Victim 7: £19,500 (between 23 October 2023 and 3 November 2023)
• Victim 8: £19,730 (March 2024)
• Victim 9: £19,730 (between 17 and 22 March 2024)
• Victim 10: £19,730 (between 4 and 5 August 2024)
• Victim 11: £19,800 (6 August 2024)
• Victim 12: £19,730 (4 August 2024)

The total fraud amounted to £213,180. The Applicant, a former estate agent, arranged viewings, created documentation and used Company A to present the lettings as legitimate. The Applicant was arrested on 25 January 2025 at The City airport while attempting to board a flight.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of four years and four months was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the learned sentencing judge's categorisation of culpability and harm (and resulting starting point) was justified under the sentencing guidelines.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (Attorney Rosser)

• The matter was not properly a highest-culpability case: the number of victims was not large, the modus operandi was not particularly sophisticated and there was limited evidence of others' involvement.
• The learned judge had erred in moving harm to category 1; the prosecution had suggested a medium level of harm and only two victims suffered serious detrimental impact, so at most an upward movement within the category should have been applied rather than to the next category.
• Significant mitigation existed: no previous convictions, positive institutional behaviour and expressions of remorse; the sentence of four years and four months was submitted to be manifestly excessive.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any representations made on behalf of the prosecution in this renewal hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Sheldon (giving the court's decision) agreed with the single judge's earlier refusal on the papers. The court explained that:

• The learned sentencing judge (Judge Reid) was entitled to adopt a global approach to the offending and to treat the conduct as within culpability A: the frauds were conducted over a sustained period, involved a large number of victims and were of a sophisticated nature given the Applicant's estate-agent background, advertising, viewings and documentary fabrication.
• On harm, the financial loss exceeded £200,000 and thus fell within the relevant guideline category before considering victim impact. There was evidence of at least two victims who suffered seriously detrimental effects; the guidelines do not require all victims to have suffered serious detriment before moving harm up a category, so it was reasonably open to move harm to category 1.
• Accordingly, a starting point of seven years (category 1A under the guidelines) was open to the sentencing judge. The judge permissibly reduced that starting point by six months for mitigation and then reduced the sentence by one-third to reflect full credit for guilty pleas, resulting in an effective sentence of 52 months (four years and four months).
• The court rejected the Applicant's characterisation of the judge's approach as over-mechanistic; it accepted the sentencing judge's methodology of reaching a single concurrent sentence to reflect the overall criminality and noted that consecutive sentences could have produced a materially longer total sentence even after totality adjustment.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

The court refused the Applicant's renewal application for leave to appeal the sentence. The direct consequence is that the four years and four months custodial sentence imposed by Judge Reid remains in force. The opinion records that the sentence was within the range open to the sentencing judge; the decision does not purport to establish a novel legal precedent beyond application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts of this case.