VAT fraud case delay plea fails
18 May 07
Six year wait not a human rights infringement where defence preparation part of cause
Two accused charged with a £37 million VAT fraud have failed to have the case against them dropped because of delay in bringing the case to trial.
Mohammed Sattar and Ronnie Decker were first charged on 21 May 2001 by customs and excise officers with contravention of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 72(1) in a total sum of £37,060,178.04. They argued that the time that had since elapsed had infringed their right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time, under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but this week the criminal appeal court upheld a single judge's decision that the case should go ahead.
The court heard that the case was reported to Crown Office in March 2003; that petition warrants were issued in April 2004 and that the accused appeared on petition on 27 May 2004. Provisional trial dates in 2004 and 2005 had been put off because the accused were not ready for trial, and the second accused then changed solicitors. Further delay occurred in 2006 when a revised forensic accountant's report was made available to the defence.
By this time the judge hearing the case had a "real concern" over the total delay and a hearing became necessary into the cause. The Crown produced affidavits and after further adjournments the accused's motion was refised in December 2006.
Lord Osborne, who delivered the court's opinion, said that the principles to be applied were set out by the Privy Council in the 2002 case Dyer v Watson. "Having considered the detailed chronology which has been prepared by the Crown and the material in the affidavits obtained by them, we consider that the Judge of First Instance had material before him which was quite capable of explaining and justifying the lapse of time which had occurred", he ruled.
The judge pointed out that counsel for Sattar had focused particularly on a period between January and April 2004 as indicating a lack of urgency. While papers had been sent to the wrong office in that time, he added, the error had been quickly corrected, and the period had to be seen in the context of the period as a whole. The need to add a style of charge to the computer system was not a factor for criticism.
The court agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that "It seemed to me that the sequence of events after the appellants appeared on petition was largely dictated by defence preparation and that the desertion in order to reconsider the charges was reasonable."
The opinion of the court (Lords Osborne, Macfadyen and Philip) can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007HCJAC30.html .