Summary of Approved Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 September 2025 the Defendant (then aged 38) pleaded guilty at the Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of three offences of fraud by abuse of position contrary to sections 1 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. On 2 April 2026 the Defendant was sentenced at the Crown Court to concurrent terms totalling 18 months' imprisonment. The Defendant sought leave to appeal against sentence; the application was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

Between July 2021 and April 2022 the Defendant, presenting as a watch broker, entered into business arrangements with three separate victims introduced via mutual acquaintances. After delivering an initial order to establish trust, he procured advance payments for further orders which were never fulfilled. The three victims paid over £213,757 in total (Victim 1: ~£41,460; Victim 2: £92,000; Victim 3: £140,297). Examination of bank accounts showed the funds were dispersed to the Defendant's own accounts, to settle gambling debts and on occasion as purported payments to other clients; none of the money was repaid.

Victim personal statements described significant financial loss and substantial emotional harm (betrayal, shame, anxiety, loss of confidence and security). The Defendant had no previous convictions and one caution for harassment in 2015.

The sentencing exercise involved disagreement on guideline categorisation (prosecution: category A2/A3; defence: category B). A psychological assessment by Expert Gaskell concluded the Defendant suffered from a severe gambling disorder at the time of the offences and that the disorder was causative. The Defendant had been abstinent for eleven weeks by the date of the report, had engaged with an addiction recovery coach and with Charity A, and had been accepted for treatment by the Health Service.

The Recorder (Judge Norman) concluded culpability was reduced to a moderate extent and moved the offending from A2 to B2, selected a starting point of three years, reduced to 27 months on mitigation, and then reduced by one third for an early guilty plea to 18 months. The Recorder rejected the defence request to defer sentence and ordered immediate custody. The full court considered the Defendant's application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the full court should grant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether the Recorder erred in refusing to make a deferment order under section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
3. Whether the Recorder was required to seek assistance (for example from the Probation Service or counsel) before concluding that realistic, measurable deferment requirements could not be formulated to monitor gambling and support rehabilitation.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (Attorney Corre)

• The Applicant did not challenge the guideline categorisation (B2), the length of the sentence (18 months) or the decision to impose immediate custody as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
• The Applicant submitted that the Recorder should have deferred sentence under section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
• The Applicant further submitted the Recorder erred in reasoning by concluding there were no realistic requirements to monitor gambling without seeking assistance from the Probation Service or counsel; had assistance been sought the Applicant would have proposed specific conditions (self-exclusion and supervised support via mutual support groups and providers).
• It was submitted that, by failing to seek such assistance, the Recorder failed to have regard to the considerations in section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Prosecution's Position (as recorded)

• At sentencing the prosecution contended the offences fell within category A3 of the Fraud Guidelines with potential to move to A2 because of high impact on victims; the Recorder accepted A2 initially before finding mitigation reduced culpability to B2.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the text and purpose of section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (the deferment order power), noting that deferment may be made to enable the court to have regard to post-conviction conduct or change in circumstances and that deferment requirements must be specific, measurable and undertaken with the offender's consent. The court observed the statutory temporal limits on deferment (six months in this case because the conviction pre-dated 22 March 2026).

The court reviewed the Imposition Guideline and the authority in R v Swinbourne to identify the key enquiry: whether successful compliance with specified deferment conditions would allow the court to impose a different, non-custodial sentence. That is a fact-specific enquiry requiring an antecedent assessment of whether a non-custodial sentence could be justified if conditions were met.

The Recorder had carefully considered whether a community order or suspended sentence was appropriate and concluded the custody threshold was crossed. She accepted the evidence of the Defendant's gambling disorder and gave mitigation accordingly, but concluded impairment of control was not absent and that appropriate punishment, given the seriousness of the offending and the impact on victims, required immediate custody. The Recorder addressed deferment, concluded she could not see realistic and sensible measurable requirements that could be imposed to monitor gambling or produce reparation within the available deferral period, and referred to prior treatment episodes which had not prevented relapse.

The full court found the Recorder had considered the statutory criteria and relevant guidance, and that, having determined immediate custody was necessary, it would have been inappropriate to defer sentence in the interests of justice on the facts of this case. The court held the Recorder was entitled to reach the conclusions she did about the absence of realistic, enforceable deferment requirements and the need for immediate custody.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Direct effect: the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (concurrent) imposed by the Recorder stands.

Broader implication: the court applied existing statutory provisions and guideline and case-law guidance on deferment orders (including R v Swinbourne and the Imposition Guideline). The decision did not purport to create new precedent beyond applying those existing principles to the facts; it confirms that deferment is inappropriate where the sentencing judge properly concludes that only immediate custody can provide appropriate punishment and that realistic, measurable deferment requirements cannot be formulated to justify a different sentence within the permitted deferral period.