We continue our crime review of 2022 by looking at the times cases were sent to the Court of Appeal.
Self confessed 'devil' has more jail time piled on
Self-confessed "devil" Paul Harris had his jail time increased to 12 years by the Court of Appeal in February for subjecting a woman to humiliating abuse on camera and raping her.
The 36-year-old was jailed for eight years and nine months in December 2021 after he admitted holding the woman against her will, rape and forcing her to engage in sexual activity.
But that jail time was increased to 12 years in February this year after the Court of Appeal agreed with lawyers for the Attorney General that the earlier sentence was unduly lenient.
Lady Justice Macur, delivering the judgement, said: “As far as culpability is concerned it appears to us that this was a course of behaviour which was persistent and which has led to significant psychological harm.
“There was the use of a dangerous object [a bottle, used as a sex toy].
“There was additional humiliation and degradation by the use of a belt as a dog leash.
"It was a sustained incident over the course of several hours.”
READ MORE: ‘Devil’ gets years added on to jail sentence
ATIK nightclub
Suranga Wijethunga failed in his bid to reduce the 13 month jail sentence imposed in March for sexually assaulting two students in ATIK nightclub in Oxford in 2019.
The Sri Lankan national denied assaulting the women, one of whom had Wijethunga’s genitals thrust into her back, and claimed that he must have unzipped his trousers as he was drunk and "wished to pee".
The offences were committed after a whisky binge on an empty stomach.
He had not touched alcohol since then.
Lawyers for the Oxford man claimed that the judge had "erred in principle" by not giving sufficient weight to his personal mitigation.
Jonathan Coode, mitigating for Wijethunga, urged the Court of Appeal to replace the immediate jail time with a suspended sentence.
Although not included in his written arguments, the barrister said his client risked automatic deportation to Sri Lanka as he had been jailed for more than a year.
Mr Justice Bryan said of the judge’s decision to impose 13 months’ in jail: “He was entitled to pass a sentence of imprisonment of the length that was passed.”
Dismissing the appeal, the judge noted previous Court of Appeal judgements that stated judges should not take into account whether someone may be deported by the Home Office.
READ MORE: ATIK nightclub sexual assaulter loses appeal against sentence
Posh Nosh stabber
Anton Mullings was jailed for four-and-a-half years in 2019 after jurors found him guilty of wounding with intent.
Mullings had swiped a knife from the Posh Nosh kebab van in Oxford city centre in the early hours of November 26, 2016, and stabbed his victim in the leg.
Appealing his conviction, the stabber claimed that the judge who heard his trial was "biased".
Mullings, then 26, represented himself at his trial at Oxford Crown Court in 2019.
His defence was summarised by Judge Thomas KC, who gave the Court of Appeal’s judgement at the hearing in February, as being ‘obstructive’.
Rather than challenge the prosecution's identification of him as the knifeman, he challenged much of the process of his trial – including one of the witnesses being granted an interpreter.
The Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal his conviction, saying trial judge Nigel Daly had "bent over backwards to assist" Mullings.
READ MORE: Posh Nosh knife swipe stabber’s appeal dismissed
Takeaway’s fire fines
Abingdon takeaway Sami’s had £20,000 wiped off the fine it must pay for breaching fire safety rules – after the Court of Appeal agreed that the original £120,000 penalty was "manifestly excessive".
Owners of the Ock Street fast food restaurant were prosecuted after a 2019 inspection found that a malfunctioning sprinkler system had been removed, fire doors were inadequate and staff were sleeping in an upstairs room.
Allowing the appeal in June, Mr Justice Bourne said: “In our judgement the judge was not bound to view this as a case of flagrant disregard for the law.
“Disconnecting the sprinkler system was an act of folly but the judge expressly accepted the directors had not thought through the consequences.
“The fire doors, although inadequate, had been approved by a building control.”
The £120,000 fine was quashed and replaced with a £100,000 fine.
The company was given a year to pay.
READ MORE: Court of Appeal cuts £120k fire safety fines for Abingdon takeaway Sami's
Dog walker’s appeal dismissed
Senior judges dismissed Wantage dog walker "pawer" Artig Emmanuel’s argument that his convictions were unsafe as he was "pressured" into pleading guilty to an assault charge and a judge made a racist remark to him.
Representing himself, the qualified engineer sought to overturn his convictions on seven grounds.
He claimed to have come under pressure to plead to the common assault, and that he should have an "appropriate adult present" as he suffered from an autistic spectrum condition.
The defendant also argued the assault charge was "altered" from beating to battery and he "did not understand what that was".
He also argued that the judge should have granted an adjournment for him to consider "what I was pleading to", that he was wrong to bring up his autism and direct the jury "to have no sympathy" and took issue with the answer given to jurors about the definition of sexual assault.
Emmanuel claimed the judge used a "racist" phrase - "you are going back to where you came from" - at an earlier hearing.
Mr Justice Nicklin, giving the judgement in September, said the court was satisfied Emmanuel was "not pressurised" and given "appropriate advice".
His autism was "not of such severity that he needed an intermediary" and there was "no question of him needing an appropriate adult".
READ MORE: Court of Appeal dismisses Wantage dog walker sex assaulter's appeal
Assaults on sleeping woman
The Court of Appeal upheld the three-year sentence given to Oxford surveyor Raj Garewal, who admitted sexually assaulting a sleeping woman.
Government lawyers had tried to get the jail term increased, arguing that it was "unduly lenient".
But Lady Justice Macur, who in November delivered the judgement on behalf of the panel of three senior judges, disagreed.
“This hearing is a review and not a rehearing. That means this or any other court may reach a different conclusion but that does not necessarily undermine a judge’s finding reached after consideration of all the relevant facts,” she said.
The Solicitor General had not identified any "error" in the judge’s findings beyond a failure to find the victim ‘particularly vulnerable’ as set out in the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, she added.
READ MORE: Senior judges reject claim that sex offender's three year jail term was 'too low'
Snapchat scammer
A Snapchat scammer tricked a young woman into sending him nude photographs.
Lawyers for Lee Alexander tried to convince the Court of Appeal in September that the two year and nine month jail sentence was manifestly excessive.
Gordana Austin, for 22-year-old Alexander, argued that Judge Ian Pringle KC took too high a starting point when considering what sentence to impose and failed to take account of her client’s mitigation, including his age and mental health difficulties.
Rejecting the appeal, Mr Justice Fraser said: “This is an unusual fraud case because there is no express financial impact.
“The victim here was not someone who suffered a financial loss and what in fact she provided cannot be equated to money value.
“The impact on her was something far greater and in a sense something money cannot buy or put right.”
READ MORE: Snapchat nudes scammer's appeal thrown out by senior judges
Drone ‘lost’
Thames Valley Police apologised after it emerged that a drone that could have been sold to compensate victims of burglar Lee Doyle had been destroyed.
Another asset said to have been owned by the burglar, jailed for more than five years in 2019, had been lost.
The boat could not be seized "due to a number of different factors regarding ownership and identification of the boat", police said.
As a result, there were no assets to sell in order to pay a £3,800 compensation order.
The case was before the Court of Appeal in the autumn in order to clear up whether an Oxford judge had the power to quash that earlier compensation order, bearing in mind Doyle had no funds to pay it.
The senior judges annulled the first financial order.
READ MORE: Victims left without compensation after police 'lose' burglar's boat and destroy drone
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article