WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R EXCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT IPSWICH
(MRS RECORDER EMMA NASH) [T20210485]
Case No 2024/02962/B3 Wednesday 10 June 2026
Neutral Citation No [2026] EWCA Crim 800
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE FIELD KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
- v –
Between
WAYNE ASHLEY MURFET____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)___________________Mr J Christopher KC appeared for Applicant___________________J U D G M E N TDate 2026-06-10
[1]This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by the single judge.[2]On 17 July 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Ipswich, the applicant was convicted of two offences of making or supplying articles for use in fraud (counts 1 and 14) and seven offences of fraud (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15), contrary to sections 7(1) and 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 respectively.[3]On 1 October 2024, he was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. No issue arises on sentence.[4]The offences arose from the construction and sale of a number of properties in Newmarket, Suffolk. The applicant and companies associated with him were involved in the development and sale of those properties.[5]The articles which the jury found he had made or supplied for use in fraud were Building Control Completion Certificates in respect of 36 flats in development, known as the Grosvenor Development (count 1), and one of eight new houses, the Borough Green Development (count 14).[6]The fraud counts alleged that the applicant had committed fraud by failing to disclose to the purchasers of six of the flats and to the house at Plot 8 of the Borough Green Development that the properties had not been certified as complete by the Building Control Department of the relevant council. The time period of the indictment was August 2018 to July 2019.[7]The prosecution case was that the applicant sold properties which had not been completed to the satisfaction of the relevant Building Control Departments. To achieve the sales, false Building Control Certificates of Completion were presented to prospective purchasers and/or their solicitors during the conveyancing process. The applicant needed these certificates to release cash and make sales. He had used ten genuine certificates issued to him on two other developments to create false certificates, and made false declarations to the purchasers of the various flats at Grosvenor House that the remedial building work was complete and that he had satisfied the legal requirements in order to push through the sales. He misled the buyers by providing inaccurate information and/or failed to inform them that a valid certificate of building completion did not exist.[8]To prove the case the prosecution relied on the evidence of Michelle Webb, who was employed by West Suffolk Council as a building control inspector. Between December 2016 and February 2018 she carried out routine inspections at the Grosvenor site. In March 2017 she noted during an inspection that fire stopping and compartmentation would be required between the individual flats and the common areas. Evidence that the work had been carried out was to be provided. During later inspections between January and August 2018, the work had not been fully completed and there was continued evidence of non-compliance. This was brought, on her evidence, to the applicant's attention.[9]Robin Fysh was a service manager for building control at the Council. He became involved in the Grosvenor site development in February 2018. His evidence was that following a site visit in February he raised several areas of concern with the applicant and copied in the developer and architect. Mr Fysh approved ten certificates for the flats in the newbuild block on 21 August 2018, which he sent in bulk. He raised with the applicant issues concerning fire stopping and compartmentation and asked whether the work had been completed. The applicant confirmed that it had been. Mr Fysh in evidence denied that he had issued any certificates for the development on 31 August 2018. Some of the flats were signed off in September and December 2018, and then Flat 25 and the remainder the following October 2019, when all were sold. Mr Fysh was satisfied that the fire issues had been addressed but that there should be no occupation of the flats until all the work on the list of concerns had been completed. He said that by approving the flats when they were not fully complete, he was assisting the developer with finance, allowing more flats to be sold in order then to finance the remainder of the work needed.[10]The prosecution further relied on communication between Mr Fysh and the applicant regarding fire stopping methods and the remedial work which needed to be undertaken by the applicant before building certificates could be granted. These communications had taken place after 31 August 2018, the date of the fraudulent completion certificates.[11]The communication with Mr Fysh demonstrated that the applicant had obtained genuine completion certificates for all but one of the flats on the basis of undertakings and promises that the remedial work required would be undertaken. It had not been.[12]There was no evidence to show that the fraudulent certificates had been sent electronically to the applicant.[13]In interview, the applicant said that to the best of his knowledge the certificates were genuine.[14]The defence case was that the building completion certificates had been provided to the applicant in good faith, by or on the instruction of Mr Fysh. The applicant then passed them to those purchasing the flats at Grosvenor House fully believing that they satisfied the legal requirements for such a certificate to be issued.[15]It was his case that he had not made the false certificates, or supplied them intending them to be used in fraud. He did not dishonestly withhold any information that he was under a legal obligation to disclose, as he believed that they were genuine.[16]The issue for the jury was therefore to decide the provenance of the 36 completion certificates dated 31 August 2018, and whether the applicant believed them to be genuine.[17]Before the case was opened to the jury, Mr Christopher KC, for whose assistance we are grateful today, submitted that the prosecution should not be permitted to adduce evidence of the results of inspections of the Grosvenor Development in January and May 2020, which highlighted areas of fire risk at the property. This evidence was to the effect that an examination of the spaces between the floors (the voids) in January 2020 identified a lack of compartmentation. A fire risk assessment report was then commissioned by the Council for the whole building; it was carried out in May 2020.[18]Mr Christopher submitted that this evidence was inadmissible, as it was irrelevant to the issues which the jury had to resolve. The question was who it was who had issued the 36 certificates in 2018. He submitted that the fact that an inspection two years later had revealed a fire risk was irrelevant to that issue.[19]Alternatively, Mr Christopher submitted that, if admissible, the evidence should be excluded pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, because any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence.[20]Mr Christopher submitted to the Recorder at trial, as he does before us, that the applicant did not face any charges relating to the dangerous condition of the development, nor that the certificates were obtained by misrepresentation. The impact of the reports was prejudicial to the applicant, as there was a real danger that the jury would conclude that the applicant had endangered the lives of the occupants of the flats.[21]The prosecution submitted at trial that the evidence was plainly relevant and admissible. They submitted that there was a continuing chain of events following the making or supply of the fraudulent certificates through the conveyance of the flats and beyond. Dishonesty or intention that the items were to be used in the commission of a fraud is an essential element of the offence. The emails after the false certificates were supplied, chasing further certificates, in their submission demonstrated the applicant's knowledge that the certificates were not genuine. It was the prosecution's case that he knew full well of the regulations that applied. He wrote an email in January 2018 saying that he was aware of the fire stopping regulations and was confident that he would meet them. The fire reports show that the work he said in emails was done, was not done. Building completion certificates would not have been issued if that had been known at the time. Knowing what he had done, the applicant attempted to cover his tracks by seeking to obtain genuine certificates and continued to act dishonestly with that aim.[22]The Recorder ruled that the evidence was admissible. In her view, to allow the jury to be told that genuine certificates had been issued in relation to 22 of the 36 flats, without the evidence of why and how that came to be the case and what the true position was about work not done would be misleading. The certificates in count 1 could not be seen in a vacuum or in isolation. The entirety of the applicant's conduct throughout the process of obtaining building certificates, along with evidence of whether the regulations he was aware of were met, was both relevant and admissible. It was capable of assisting the jury to determine whether the applicant honestly believed that the 36 certificates were genuine, given the defects which existed and persisted util 2020.[23]It was also relevant, in the Recorder's judgment, to the credibility of the applicant's account on the relevant issues. The Recorder did not consider that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that she ought not to admit it. This was save in one respect. The Recorder did not permit evidence as to the possible consequences of the failure to meet the fire regulations (said to be an intolerable risk to life) to be adduced.[24]Mr Christopher submits that the judge was wrong not to exclude this evidence. In essence he repeats his objections made to the admissibility of the evidence at trial. He places emphasis once more on the fact that the applicant was not charged with health and safety offences and that the local authority did issue certificates for 28 out of the 36 flats of the building, and he was not charged with bringing about this by misrepresentation. In his submission, the 28 certificates were not brought about by reason of fraud concerning the voids. Motive was not in dispute at trial: to help with cashflow and to obtain sales. The process started earlier, but could have happened if he was reliant on genuine certificates; it had nothing to do with fire voids.[25]Mr Christopher adds that the defects said to be demonstrated in the 2020 reports did not prevent Mr Fysh from issuing the 28 certificates. Many of them would have been apparent. In his evidence Mr Fysh said that there were many aspects of the fire report with which he disagreed. Mr Christopher submits that at the time of the creation of the 36 certificates, it could not be shown that the applicant was aware of the voids. The state of them could therefore have no relevance to the issues in the case. He submits that the evidence remains deeply prejudicial.[26]In that regard he has taken us to the actual report and to various aspects of it. He is further critical of the summing up which, he submits, did not adequately, if at all, explain the relevance of this evidence. He submits that the convictions are therefore arguably unsafe.[27]In their written response, the prosecution say that the results of the inspections for the Grosvenor Development on 30 January 2020 and 18 to 22 May 2020, which highlighted areas of fire risk in the Grosvener property were relevant by the fact that they established that the required work for fire stopping and compartmentation had not ben addressed or implemented., as was assured by or on behalf of the applicant. At the time of the sale of the individual flats by the applicant, the respondent's case was that he would have been aware that a final inspection was required as part of the procedure and that, rather than risk failing that final inspection, he produced the false Building Control Certificates to use during the individual conveyancing processes.[28]Further, it was the respondent's case that the applicant, having produced and used the false certificates in the conveyancing processes for the flats that were sold, went on to obtain completion certificates issued by Building Control to replace the false ones that had been created. As the building works continued, the applicant provided further false assurances to Mr Fysh, who then issued some certificates on behalf of Building Control. The reports of the inspections for 30 January 2020 and May 2020 were capable of demonstrating that the assurances provided by or on behalf of the applicant were not trustworthy and had misled Mr Fysh. The reports, say the prosecution, assisted with the issue of motive for the creation of the false certificates, and the only beneficiary was the applicant and his company. The reports were highly relevant and admissible and undermined the applicant's case. The probative value of the reports therefore outweighed any prejudicial effect.[29]As we have already said, we are grateful for Mr Christopher's helpful submissions. However, we remain unpersuaded that they give rise to an arguable ground that the convictions in this case are unsafe.[30]In our view, it is not arguable that the Recorder was wrong to assess the evidence in question as relevant and admissible for the reasons that she gave. The fact that the reports post-dated the events is irrelevant.[31]We agree with the respondent that the evidence of the reports was also relevant and admissible as explaining the applicant's motive for falsifying and making fraudulent use of the Building Certificates in order to achieve early sales of the properties because he was under financial pressure. This was plainly relevant to the question of who had created or supplied the fraudulent certificates.[32]We are equally unpersuaded that the evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We consider it unarguable that the Recorder erred in her finding in this respect. We can find no arguable improper exercise of her discretion in this regard.[33]The fact that Mr Fysh stated in evidence that he did not agree with all of the findings of the reports does not, in our view, affect the admissibility of the evidence. We agree with the single judge that, if anything, it assisted the applicant's case.[34]We do not accept that the Recorder's summing up was arguably deficient with regard to the reports. In this regard we note that Mr Christopher, notwithstanding his criticisms today, did not raise this as an issue at trial with the Recorder.[35]It is unarguable, in our view, that the convictions in this case were unsafe. Accordingly, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused. ____________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________