R v Nimley (Emmanuel)
Court of Appeal
Citations: [2010] EWCA Crim 2752.
Facts
The appellant recorded films at the cinema on his mobile phone and uploaded them to a website where the public could then watch them for free. He was convicted of possessing an article for use in connection with fraud contrary to s.6 of the Fraud Act 2006 and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
Issue(s)
- Was the sentence manifestly excessive?
Decision
The Court reduced the sentence to a community order. The appellant’s actions were planned and deliberate, and he had initially denied his wrongdoing. However, the lack of any financial benefit made a custodial sentence inappropriate.
This Case is Authority For…
This case shows that to convict a person under s.6 of the Fraud Act 2006, it is not necessary to show that the ‘article’ only has illegal uses. In this case, the article was the mobile phone – which had many legitimate uses. All that mattered is that it was presently being used to commit fraud.
