Ludlow v R

Trevor Allan Ludlow appeals against two sentencing decisions made in relation to his involvement in the collapse of National Finance 2000 Ltd. In the first instance, Judge Bouchier sentenced Ludlow to five years and seven months’ imprisonment on seven charges of significant commercial fraud. In the second, Toogood J sentenced Ludlow to a further nine months’ imprisonment on related charges. The total penalty for all Ludlow’s offending amounted to six years and four months’ imprisonment. Ludlow argued that the sentences were too high, and that the sentence on the Financial Markets Authority charges should have run concurrently with the sentences imposed in the District Court. The Court of Appeal found no basis for criticism of the sentences imposed, and the appeals against sentence were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal examined the seriousness of Ludlow’s offending, which involved dishonesty over a lengthy period, a breach of trust, and harm to vulnerable victims. The Court found that the starting point of six and a half years’ imprisonment for the Serious Fraud Office charges was within the range. The Court also noted that the starting point for the Financial Markets Authority charges was appropriate, given the aggravating factors. The Court found that the discount for mitigating factors allowed by Toogood J was fair, and rejected the suggestion that the sentence on the Financial Markets Authority charges should have run concurrently with the sentences imposed in the District Court. The Court found no error in the sentencing approach of either Judge, and the effective end sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment was within the range.