"3. The server ground: A. In her31 January 2023 ruling, the judge considered the prejudice arising from the loss of data caused by the encryption of the server KM1. There was a live issue as to whether you really were unable to assist the prosecution in accessing such data given the inherent implausibility of your case that the 100-character password was only saved on that server; an approach that the IT experts agreed made no sense and put you and your business at substantial risk of losing the data in any number of circumstances, including a power outage. B. The judge was right to conclude that a fair trial remained possible and that the prejudice caused by the loss of the data could be properly accommodated by the trial process. You were able to explore and present evidence about the inadequacies in the manner in which the server was seized. C. Further, the judge properly directed the jury to consider the question of prejudice in her legal directions. She directed the jury that if they were sure that the defendants had deliberately withheld the password that would have allowed the server to be decrypted and accessed then they might properly conclude that any prejudice was their own responsibility and not something to be taken into account in their favour. Conversely, she directed the jury that if they were not sure that the defendants had deliberately withheld the password, they should the possible prejudice into account in the defendants' favour. Such directions were impeccable and fair. 4. Dale's defence: It was a matter for Dale to decide whether to retain or dispense with counsel, and whether to give evidence in his own defence or not. Further, it was for Dale and his then counsel to determine how they should best defend Dale. The fact that Dale's case was not run as you would wish does not give rise to an arguable ground of appeal."
"You rightly accept that you were the driving force behind these frauds and that your culpability was high. The judge was right to identify that the appropriate starting point indicated by the Sentencing Council for each offence of fraudulent trading (taking the analogous offence of fraud by false representation for which there are guidelines) was 7 years' imprisonment with a category range of 5-8 years. It was a serious aggravating feature of your case that, after suspending operations between 2016 and 2018 while Camden investigated your first business and despite the clear warning then issued to you, you then established and operated a second fraudulent business offering the same services between July 2018 and September 2019. You seek to blame Trading Standards for not 'nipping your criminality in the bud'; but you alone were responsible for your actions and the earlier investigations and warnings are aggravating and not mitigating features of your case. While consecutive terms would have been appropriate, the judge properly took account of the principle of totality in passing concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 2. In fixing the appropriate sentence for those frauds at 8½ years' imprisonment, she treated your conviction on count 3 as a further aggravating feature. The Guideline for the money laundering offence on the basis of a value of£300,000 was 5 years' imprisonment with a category range of 3-6 years. The judge properly took account of the principle of totality in passing a much-reduced sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on that count but ordering that it should run consecutively to the sentence of 8½ years imposed on counts 1 and 2. The judge's total sentence of 9½ years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and properly took into account your overall criminality, the delay in your case and the relevant personal mitigation available to you."
"It was your decision to sack Mr Furlong. It must have been obvious that Ms Birch might not have been able to take over your defence given her advanced state of pregnancy, the overrunning of the trial, and the known fact that for some time she had not been well enough to attend court. Further, it was your considered decision, against advice and after being given substantial time to consider your position, not to give evidence. You cannot now complain about the difficulties that these decisions caused your defence of this case or invite the appeal court to speculate as to what might have been had you given evidence. Your criticisms of Mr Furlong's conduct have in any event been answered by both Mr Furlong and Ms Birch (in whom you appear to have confidence) in their joint response for the appeal court, and by the further observations of the Crown. It is not arguable that the judge's second direction was either wrong in law or unfair. It properly related to counts 1 and 2 as charged."
"It is not clear to me that your appeal against sentence (as opposed to your appeal against conviction) is out of time. If that is wrong and you seek to renew this application for leave to appeal then you will also need to seek an extension of time from the full court. Before the judge and in your initial grounds of appeal you rightly accepted that your culpability was high. There is no merit in your belated attempt to suggest otherwise. The judge was right to identify that the appropriate starting point indicated by the Sentencing Council for each offence of fraudulent trading (taking the analogous offence of fraud by false representation for which there are guidelines) was 7 years' imprisonment with a category range of 5-8 years. It was a serious aggravating feature of your case that, after suspending operations between 2016 and 2018 while Camden investigated your first business and despite the clear warning then issued to you, you then established and operated a second fraudulent business offering the same services between July 2018 and September 2019. You seek to blame trading standards for not 'nipping your criminality in the bud'; but you alone were responsible for your actions and the earlier investigations and warnings are aggravating and not mitigating features of your case. While consecutive terms would have been appropriate, the judge properly took account of the principle of totality and appropriately distinguished between your own role and that of your brother in passing concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 2 of 7 years' imprisonment. The Guideline for the money laundering offence on the basis of a value of£300,000 was 5 years' imprisonment with a category range of 3-6 years. The judge properly took account of the principle of totality in passing a much reduced sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on that count but ordering that it should run consecutively to the sentence of 7 years imposed on counts 1 and 2. The judge's total sentence of 8 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and properly took into account your overall criminality, the delay in your case and the relevant personal mitigation available to you."
"The intermediary ground: This is hopeless. The expert evidence was that you were fit to stand trial. The recommendation for an intermediary was based on the expert's flawed understanding of the intermediary's role. There was no expert evidence that you needed help with communication, but rather proper breaks (which the judge accommodated) and clear explanations as to the charges that you faced (which was a matter for your lawyers and not for an intermediary). Furthermore, no intermediary had been identified or provided a report identifying any communication difficulties with which he/she might assist. On the evidence before her, the judge rightly rejected the applications to adjourn this second trial or to sever the indictment in week 5. The alleged inadequacy of breaks: You wholly fail to articulate how the judge's careful case management of this trial was insufficient. Without identifying a number of occasions when it is argued that the judge should have afforded a break that was requested by your counsel and precisely how the judge's refusal of such additional breaks prevented your fair trial, this ground is hopeless. The alleged failure to hear the whole application: This ground goes nowhere without particulars as to which applications the judge decided without hearing full argument; the gist (and evidential basis) for the argument that she did not hear; identification of the relevant ruling; analysis as to how the argument that she did not hear should have caused the judge to rule differently; and analysis as to how such decision renders your conviction unsafe. I do not accept your assertion that the ground is strengthened by the judge's failure on occasions to ask the prosecution to respond. Any judge is absolutely entitled to dismiss a bad application without calling for adversarial argument in response to the application. Doing so particularly when confronted with repeated bad applications and while a jury is waiting, can indeed be good practice and proper case management. Bias: The judge's rejection of a number of applications goes nowhere near to establishing bias. While advocates should be fearless in alleging bias, or the appearance of bias, in those rare cases whether that is appropriate, it is wholly improper to insinuate bias without proper foundation or to fail to explain the basis for making such a serious allegation against a judge. No case to answer: You have not provided me with a copy of the judge's ruling on this issue and accordingly it is not possible to conclude that there is any arguable appeal. From all of the other papers that I have read concerning your own and your family's appeals, I am not presently persuaded that there is any merit in this ground. The conduct of Dale's case: You assert that events at trial concerning the conduct of your son's defence prejudiced your own defence, but you identify no evidence whatever to support such assertion. In particular, you do not identify any specific respect in which you were unable to participate effectively in proceedings by reason of the conduct of your son's defence. Delay: You make an offhand reference to delay but did not argue that the prosecution was an abuse of process. Such argument was taken by your sons and rightly rejected in the judge's ruling on31st January 2023 ."