Background
Michael Haslam, the sole director of M and J Builders Ltd, pleaded guilty to fraudulent trading between November 2020 and November 2022. Although the company was unable to pay its debts—and an insolvency practitioner told Haslam in April 2022 that it was insolvent and should have stopped trading—he continued accepting advance payments from customers. Much of the promised work was incomplete, inadequate, or never begun, and materials paid for were not supplied. Eight families suffered serious financial, emotional, and psychological harm.
At preliminary hearings, the Crown Court judge repeatedly and firmly indicated that Haslam would not receive immediate imprisonment. After considering the victims’ evidence and the offence’s high impact, however, the judge sentenced the 74-year-old, previously unconvicted appellant to 28 months’ immediate imprisonment. The judge later declined to alter the sentence under the slip rule, explaining that fuller consideration had changed his assessment of the offence’s seriousness. Haslam appealed against sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that immediate custody was not manifestly excessive. Given the seriousness of the fraudulent trading and its devastating impact, the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment required immediate imprisonment, even though suspension would also have been a proper sentencing option.
Nevertheless, the judge’s firm statements over two hearings had created a sustained expectation that Haslam would not be imprisoned immediately. Although the judge was entitled to change his mind, imposing immediate custody in these circumstances produced a sense of injustice. Because the case was properly on the borderline between immediate custody and suspension, the Court quashed the immediate sentence and substituted the same 28-month term suspended for two years, with a 10-day rehabilitation activity requirement and 160 hours of unpaid work.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing judge may change a previously expressed view after fuller consideration of the evidence and submissions.
- Where a judge’s firm statements create a legitimate and sustained expectation of a less onerous sentence, departing from them may produce unfairness requiring an appellate remedy.
- The strict Goodyear procedure did not apply because the judge’s indication did not induce Haslam’s guilty plea; the plea followed the Crown’s decision not to proceed against his wife.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes plea-inducing sentence indications governed by Goodyear from other judicial statements about likely sentence. Even outside the formal Goodyear framework, a court’s unequivocal representations can create an expectation whose later frustration may justify appellate intervention.
The judgment also confirms that such unfairness does not automatically make immediate custody manifestly excessive or require enforcement of every earlier indication. The appropriate remedy depends on the circumstances, including whether the originally indicated outcome remained within the range of lawful sentencing options.