R. v. Slater (Oliver Anthony)

Riya SinghCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Appeal against the conviction in a case of data theft and unauthorised computer access leading to financial fraud

R. v. Slater (Oliver Anthony)
[2016] EWCA Crim 935
In the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Case Number 2015/5069/A3
Before Lord Justice Hamblen, Justice Globe and Judge Wait
Decided on May 19, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Appeal against the conviction in a case of data theft and unauthorised computer access leading to financial fraud

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (Section 2(1))

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • Oliver Slater, a derivatives trainer, left his employer, Prime Markets Limited, to form GSC with Anthony Greenway. Before leaving, Slater downloaded Prime Markets Limited’s database without authorisation.
  • Slater and his team used the stolen database to cold call potential investors, persuading them to invest in worthless rare metals. The scheme defrauded investors out of over £208,000.
  • Multiple victims suffered significant financial and personal losses due to the fraud. This led to stress, health issues, and a loss of trust in financial institutions.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

  • The appellant’s counsel argued that:
    • The starting point for the sentence was too high based on the Sentencing Council Fraud Guidelines. Moreover, there was a gross disparity between his sentence and his co-conspirator’s.
    • The consecutive sentence for unauthorised access to the computer database was unjustified, and insufficient allowance was made for his mitigation.
  • The Crown did not appear and was not represented during the appeal.

Opinion of the Bench

  • High culpability and significant harm caused justified the sentence within the Sentencing Council Fraud Guidelines range, making the starting point appropriate.
  • The disparity between Slater’s and Greenway’s was justified based on differing levels of culpability and harm.
  • The trial judge’s findings were well-founded. Therefore, the appellant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Final Decision

  • The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the original sentence of four years and four months imprisonment was justified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *