Detailed Analysis of the Criminal Law Case: R v Christopher Read

This report provides a detailed analysis of the criminal law case R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, focusing on the charges of blackmail, theft, and fraud. The case involves an offender who initiated a malware attack, followed by blackmail demands and fraudulent activities. The report examines the relevant sections of the Theft Act 1988 and the Fraud Act 2006, along with the legal arguments presented in the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. It delves into the concept of criminal culpability, the sentencing, and the court's rationale, including considerations of the offender's past behavior and potential for future offenses. The analysis also considers the appellant's arguments against the sentence and concludes with an assessment of the court's decision, emphasizing the proportionality of the sentence given the nature and execution of the crimes.

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.

3CRIMINAL LAW
committed a fraud to American Express by not acknowledging the receiving of credit card
and later using the same credit card. He was also accused of committing several theft
offences from retailers7.
Subsequently, a suit was instituted before the Crown Court and the offender was convicted
by the court for the offence of blackmail for which he was sentenced with an imprisonment
for six years. Another six months imprisonment was sentenced to him for committing fraud.
He was also convicted for several offences of theft, which incurred him with an
imprisonment of twelve months. Consequently, the offender was sentenced with an
imprisonment for seven and a half year. Apparently, though the court’s sentence seems to be
excessive but the expertise and cunningness with which the offences have been carried out, I
would agree with the court on the same, as in this case the chief focus should be on the
criminal culpability of the accused. Further, this can be supported with the theory of criminal
culpability as provided by Holder (1993)8.
In my opinion, the court has arrived at this decision after considering all the evidences.
The psychiatric report of the offender was also available to the court, which contained
mentions of the criminal inclination of the offender in his previous employments and his
disturbed social and personal life.
After analysing the psychiatric report and the previous employment reports the court
recognised the criminal inclination of the accused but it refused the possibility of a mental
treatment and care for the accused9. The court is of the opinion that the sentence was awarded
keeping in mind both his present offences and his criminal behaviours in the previous
employment. The court also based its decision on the apprehension that there is a possibility
of committing more offences by the accused in future. However, the accused preferred an
7 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499 para 19
8 Horder, Jeremy. "Criminal culpability: The possibility of a general theory." Law and Philosophy 12.2 (1993):
193-215.
9 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499 para 22

4CRIMINAL LAW
appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division challenging the decision of the Crown
Court. The appellant contended the totality of the sentence to be excessive and unjust. The
appellant though admitted the offences committed to be harassing and frightening and
acknowledged the breach of trust, but it claimed the amount of sentence to be
disproportionate. The appellant is of the opinion that the court must have exercised an
optimistic approach towards the commission of future offences by the appellant giving
regards to his psychiatric report. However, the appellant Court have rejected the appeal.
Though the argument of the appellant was worth consideration, but in my opinion the court
has based its decision on a more preventive approach10.
In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that, the sentence awarded was
just and proportionate and although the appellant was only 22years old at the time of the
offence but his similar behaviour in the previous employments have pointed towards his
culpability11.
Before coming to any conclusion I would prefer an analysis regarding certain aspects that
in my opinion needs to be explored. The offences committed by the appellant can be brought
under the sections mentioned above. The court has proper evidence of holding the accused
guilty of the same. However, the accused have pleaded guilty at the final stages of the case,
but the criminal intentions of the accused was evident from all the deceptive precautions he
has resorted to in committing the offence12. The appellant’s misconduct in the previous
employment and the psychiatric report of the same portrays the criminal inclination of the
appellant.
10 Alexander, Larry. "Insufficient concern: A unified conception of criminal culpability." Calif. L. Rev. 88
(2000): 931.
11 Sarch, Alexander. "Who cares what you think? Criminal culpability and the irrelevance of unmanifested
mental states." Law and Philosophy 36.6 (2017): 707-750.
12 Graham, Luke. "'Austerity'Policies as Crimes Against Humanity: An Assessment of UK Social Security
Policy Since 2008." Queen Mary Law Journal 9 (2018): 7-25.

5CRIMINAL LAW
Conclusion:
After, analysing all these aspects of the judgement, I am of the opinion that the court have
explored all the possibilities and facts of the case and is just and correct in its decision.
Moreover, the court is correct in anticipating the commission of future offences and the
criminality of the accused. This is because the offences committed by the appellant can be
brought under the sections mentioned above and court has proper evidence of holding the
accused guilty of the same. The accused have pleaded guilty at the final stages of the case,
but the criminal intentions of the accused was evident from all the deceptive precautions he
has resorted to in committing the offence. The motive of the court in this case is to discourage
the future culpability13. However, the accused being 22years of age at the time of committing
the offence needs a consideration while awarding the sentence but the way he executed the
offence makes the criminality of his mind very clear. Hence, the sentence awarded was
proportionate to the amount of crime he has committed.
13 R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499 para 24

6CRIMINAL LAW
Reference
Alexander, Larry. "Insufficient concern: A unified conception of criminal culpability." Calif.
L. Rev. 88 (2000): 931.
Graham, Luke. "'Austerity'Policies as Crimes Against Humanity: An Assessment of UK
Social Security Policy Since 2008." Queen Mary Law Journal 9 (2018): 7-25.
Granhag, Pär Anders, Aldert Vrij, and Bruno Verschuere, eds. Detecting deception: Current
challenges and cognitive approaches. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Horder, Jeremy. "Criminal culpability: The possibility of a general theory." Law and
Philosophy 12.2 (1993): 193-215.
R v Christopher Read [2018] EWCA Crim 2186, 2018 WL 04923499
Sarch, Alexander. "Who cares what you think? Criminal culpability and the irrelevance of
unmanifested mental states." Law and Philosophy 36.6 (2017): 707-750.
The Fraud Act 2006
The Theft Act 1988