Fraud Case: Corruption of the Highest Order

---

This document presents a comprehensive summary of Mr B’s appeal against his 2012 conviction for fraud by misrepresentation at Norwich Crown Court. Mr B is seeking to have his conviction overturned on several substantial grounds, including the introduction of new evidence, claims of judicial misdirection, procedural issues surrounding the indictments, and allegations of unfairness and collusion during and after the trial. The appeal also highlights the significant personal and professional repercussions Mr B has experienced, including ongoing harassment and alleged bias during the post-conviction review process.

Mr B was found guilty of fraud by misrepresentation following a trial at Norwich Crown Court in 2012. The conviction was based on accusations that Mr B had engaged in fraudulent financial activities, leading to a custodial sentence and considerable damage to his reputation. Central to the appeal are concerns about the indictment procedure, the evidence presented, and the conduct of both prosecution and defence during the original trial.

Our Principal Grounds for Appeal

1. New Evidence: The appeal introduces expert testimony and financial documentation that were either unavailable or overlooked during the trial, which may significantly alter the interpretation of key financial transactions.
2. Judicial Misdirection: It is alleged that the trial judge misdirected the jury during the summing up, which could have led to a misunderstanding of the charges and influenced the outcome.
3. Indictment Issues: The application points to confusion and procedural irregularities stemming from the amendment and reordering of indictments. These issues are said to have compromised Mr B’s ability to present an effective defence.
4. Claims of Collusion: Evidence is presented suggesting collusion between complainants, the prosecution, and the police, which is said to have undermined the fairness of the proceedings and prejudiced the defence.
5. Procedural Unfairness and Bias: Allegations include harassment and malicious communications directed at Mr B, as well as bias and lack of transparency in the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) handling of his case.

Key Arguments in Support of the Appeal

The appeal relies heavily on the introduction of new evidence, particularly expert analysis and financial records, which challenge the prosecution’s original interpretation of Mr B’s financial dealings. The defence contends that important documentation was either omitted or misrepresented at trial, prejudicing Mr B’s case and leading to an unsafe conviction.

Further, the appeal highlights significant procedural concerns with the indictments used at trial. The original indictment was amended and reordered, creating confusion for the jury and the defence team. The application asserts that this lack of clarity, coupled with procedural errors, undermined the fairness of the proceedings and Mr B’s ability to defend himself adequately.

Mr B also alleges that the judge’s summing up was flawed, failing to address the correct indictment and omitting or downplaying key defence arguments. This, according to the appeal, resulted in juror confusion and may have materially affected the verdict.

Additionally, the appeal presents evidence suggesting coordinated actions between complainants, the prosecution, and investigating officers, which was not disclosed to the defence. These claims are supported by patterns of conduct and inconsistencies in witness statements, indicating a possible concerted effort to secure a conviction regardless of the facts.

Ongoing Harassment and Review Process Concerns

Beyond the original trial, Mr B reports being subjected to ongoing harassment and malicious communications, allegedly involving police officers and individuals connected to the case. The application details repeated incidents of intimidation and reputational harm, which have persisted throughout the appeals process.

Criticism is also directed at the CCRC, with allegations of bias, procedural unfairness, and a lack of transparency in its review of Mr B’s case. Mr B maintains that these factors have exacerbated the injustice he has suffered.

Personal and Professional Impact

The appeal underscores the profound consequences of the conviction for Mr B, including the loss of employment, reputational damage, and considerable emotional distress affecting both himself and his family. The ongoing legal struggles and continued harassment have, according to Mr B, caused lasting harm to his wellbeing and future prospects.

In summary, Mr B’s appeal is based on the assertion that his conviction for fraud by misrepresentation at Norwich Crown Court in 2012 is unsafe due to new evidence, procedural irregularities, judicial misdirection, and collusion. He further claims that ongoing harassment and bias in the post-conviction review process have compounded the injustice. Mr B seeks the court’s intervention to acknowledge the miscarriage of justice and requests that his conviction be quashed and an acquittal entered.

Click on the image below to read the background and more of the detail into this case.