R v Pablo Jesus Belsey
[2023] EWCA Crim 1125
David Ames v R
15 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1463
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of a huge fraud, getting a 12-year sentence. The court agreed with the conviction and the sentence. The court clarified that the law about intent in fraud cases doesn't need extra instructions to the jury in this situation. The length of the sentence was also appropriate given the massive size of the fraud and other serious issues.
Key Facts
- •David Ames was convicted of two counts of fraud by abuse of position.
- •He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment (9 years and 3 years consecutive).
- •Ames controlled Harlequin Management Services (South East) Ltd (HMSSE) and other companies involved in selling off-plan properties.
- •The Harlequin business model involved significant investor losses (at least £226 million).
- •The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Fraud Act 2006 regarding intent and the appropriateness of consecutive sentences.
Legal Principles
The jury must agree on every ingredient of the offence (Brown direction). A distinction must be drawn between an ingredient of the offence and a merely evidential or ancillary issue.
R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115, R v Smith (Owen) [2014] EWCA Crim 2163, R v Dunleavy [2021] EWCA Crim 39, R v Philips [2019] EWCA Crim 577, R v Chilvers [2021] EWCA Crim 1311
Statutory interpretation: the words of the statute have primacy and are to be interpreted in their ordinary and natural meaning, in accordance with legislative purpose.
None explicitly cited, but standard principle of statutory interpretation.
Sentencing Guidelines on Totality: Concurrent sentences are ordinarily appropriate for offences arising from the same incident or facts, or a series of similar offences against the same person. Consecutive sentences are appropriate for offences arising from unrelated facts or incidents, or where overall criminality is not sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences. It is impermissible to impose consecutive sentences to evade the statutory maximum.
Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline on Totality
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Section 4(1)(c) of the Fraud Act 2006 contains a single overarching ingredient of intent, not separate ingredients. The judge's direction to the jury was proper; no Brown direction was needed. Even if a misdirection occurred, the convictions were safe given the agreed evidence of intent to make a gain.
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The consecutive sentences were justified due to the evolution of facts over time, the involvement of different companies and victims, and the seriousness of the offending. The overall sentence of 12 years was not manifestly excessive given the scale of losses (£226 million), the sophisticated nature of the fraud, and aggravating factors. The judge properly considered mitigation.