Critical Analysis of R v Christopher Read Case under Criminal Law

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CRIMINAL LAW
R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 049234991
No: 201801723/A3
Introduction:
R v Christopher is a case decided by the Crown Court sentencing a total of seven and a
half years of imprisonment to the offender, who was accused of multiple offences including
blackmail, theft and fraud. The decision was followed by an appeal in the Court of Appeal
Criminal Division claiming the same to be excessive and disproportionate to the quantum of
offence committed. The case in its initial stages revolved around the series of crimes
committed by the appellant including a malware attack followed by a chain of blackmail e-
mails, and a deception by the offender acting like a victim in the same along with certain
other offences of theft2. This document will present an addressal and critical analysis of the
legal arguments involved in this case and a conclusion containing a discussion of the
correctness of the decision of the Court.
Main Body:
The case was initially instituted before the Crown Court at Leicester, in respect of several
offences committed by the offender under section 1(1) and section 21(1) of the Theft Act
1988 and under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, which resulted in the conviction of the
offender by Judge Dean OC3.
The case was heard by Lord Justice Davis, Mrs Justice Simler DBE, Mr Justice Dove. The
abovementioned sections need to be analysed before analysing the case.
1 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499
2 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499 para 3
3 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499 at para 1

2CRIMINAL LAW
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 19884
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1988 contains the definition of theft. According to this
section, a person is said to have committed the offence of theft when he has appropriated
property of some other person dishonestly, possessing an intention of depriving that person of
that property permanently.
Section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1988
According to section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1988, a person is said to have committed the
offence of blackmail, when he has made a demand, which is unwarranted, to another person
coupled with a threat of harm to that person and that demand has been carried on with the
intention of yielding benefit to the person making the demand or another while causing a
harm to the person to whom the demand has been made
Section 1 of the Fraud Act 20065
According to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, a person may commit fraud by false
representation, failing to disclose information and abuse of position. The section awards an
imprisonment of a maximum twelve months or fine or both on summary conviction and a
maximum of ten years or fine or both on conviction on indictment.
It is evident in the light of the above mentioned section that the offender was accused of
initiating a malware attack in his employer company’s computer network followed by a chain
of email blackmailing the company with a demand of bitcoins. Moreover, the offender also
pretended to be a victim of the same by fabricating a situation6. All these have caused a
tremendous loss and harassment to the company and its employees. He was alleged to have
committed theft of commercial devices from the company. He was also alleged to have
4 The Theft Act 1988
5 The Fraud Act 2006
6 Granhag, Pär Anders, Aldert Vrij, and Bruno Verschuere, eds. Detecting deception: Current challenges and
cognitive approaches. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.