Summary of Court of Appeal Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a single judge. After a Crown Court trial on 17 July 2024 the Appellant was convicted of multiple offences: two counts of making or supplying articles for use in fraud (counts 1 and 14) contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006, and seven counts of fraud (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15) contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. On 1 October 2024 the Appellant was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. No issue was taken on sentence. The offences related to the construction and sale of properties in The City. The Appellant and companies associated with him were involved in development and sale of those properties (referred to below as Development A and Development B). The articles found to have been made or supplied were Building Control Completion Certificates for flats in Development A (count 1) and for a house in Development B (count 14). The fraud counts alleged failure to disclose to purchasers that the properties had not been certified as complete by Company A's Building Control Department during the period August 2018 to July 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether post-dated inspection reports (January and May 2020) showing ongoing fire-safety defects at Development A were admissible in evidence at the trial.
2. Whether, if admissible, those reports should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as unduly prejudicial.
3. Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury (summing up) were deficient in respect of the relevance and use of the reports, such as to render the convictions unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The January and May 2020 inspection reports were irrelevant because they post-dated the creation of the 36 completion certificates dated 31 August 2018; the central question was who had issued those 2018 certificates.
• If relevant, the reports should have been excluded under section 78 PACE because any probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect, including a real danger the jury would conclude the Appellant had endangered occupants' lives.
• The trial summing up did not adequately explain the relevance of the 2020 reports, rendering the convictions arguably unsafe.

Respondent's (Prosecution) Arguments

• The 2020 reports were relevant and admissible because they demonstrated that required fire-stopping and compartmentation work had not been addressed, undermining the Appellant's assertions that remedial work had been completed or that certificates were genuine.
• The reports assisted on motive (pressure to achieve sales and cashflow) and on whether assurances given by or on behalf of the Appellant to Company A were trustworthy, which was relevant to who created or supplied the fraudulent certificates.
• Any probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect; the evidence was necessary to avoid a misleading picture if genuine certificates issued later were shown without explanation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Cutts delivering the judgment, with Judges Fraser and Field concurring) considered whether the Appellant's submissions raised an arguable ground that the convictions were unsafe. The court accepted the Recorder's reasoning that evidence of the later inspection reports could not be viewed in isolation from the later issuance of genuine certificates and that to do so risked misleading the jury. The court held that the post-dated reports were relevant to explain (a) the provenance of certificates, (b) the Appellant's motive to create or use false certificates to obtain early sales and cashflow, and (c) whether assurances given to Company A were trustworthy. On section 78 PACE the court found no arguable error in the Recorder's exercise of discretion to admit the reports: the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and no improper exercise of discretion was shown. The court further rejected the submission that the Recorder's summing up was deficient in relation to the reports, noting that the Appellant had not raised that point at trial and that it was not arguable that the summing up rendered the convictions unsafe. The court also observed that a witness for Company A (referred to in the transcript) did not accept all findings in the reports, which if anything aided the defence rather than undermined fairness.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Direct effect: The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the convictions remain in force. The opinion does not identify or establish any new legal principle; it affirms the trial judge's evidential and section 78 PACE assessments in the particular factual context of this case.