R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Narinder Kaur
12 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 795
Court of Appeal
A woman was convicted of many fraud charges. She appealed, claiming the judge was biased and made mistakes. The appeal court looked at everything carefully and said the judge was fair and the evidence against her was very strong. The appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Narinder Kaur convicted of 14 counts of fraud, 2 counts of transferring criminal property, 1 count of conspiracy to commit fraud, 5 counts of perverting the course of justice, and 4 counts of possessing criminal property.
- •Applicant operated a three-stage refund fraud involving stolen goods, generating receipts through small purchases, and obtaining refunds.
- •Fraud involved hundreds of thousands of pounds and a wide geographical area.
- •Applicant also obtained money from stolen credit card details and lied about driver identity, migration to India, and medical history.
- •Applicant's appeal challenged the summing-up, judicial bias, several trial judge rulings, and the route to verdict.
Legal Principles
A trial process so disturbed by interventions as to become unfair renders convictions unsafe, regardless of evidence strength.
R v Tedjame-Mortty [2011] EWCA Crim 950; R v Lashley [2005] EWCA Crim 2016; R v Hulusi (1974) 58 Cr App R 378; R v Zarazadeh [2011] EWCA Crim 271; R v Mustafa and Mustafa [2020] EWCA Crim 1723; R v Bryant [2005] EWCA Crim 2079; R v Tarik Hill [2021] EWCA Crim 587
In appeals against conviction, the appellant bears the burden of disproving previous convictions on the balance of probabilities (section 74(3) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.74(3)
Trial judge's rulings on severance, no case to answer, bad character applications, evidence admissibility, and directions are reviewed for errors of law or abuse of discretion.
This case
Outcomes
Application to amend grounds of appeal and renewed application for leave to appeal refused.
Court found no arguable grounds of appeal. Allegations of judicial bias were rejected based on transcript review. The summing-up, while criticised, was found to be adequate. Rulings of the trial judge were upheld. The evidence against the applicant was deemed overwhelming.