R v Gross [2024] EWCA Crim 21 – Ss 328 and 329 POCA. - money laundering - mens rea.
- (counterfeit medicines).
1) no requirement, for money laundering offence, to prove a specific predicate offence.
- but, fair, where possible, for P to give particulars of nature of criminal activity generating monies being laundered.
2) mens rea for money laundering required P to prove D knew or suspected “criminal property” involved, but not that D knew or suspected the specific criminal activity.
R v Wiseman (Climate) [2023] EWCA Crim 1363 – Ss 1 and 2 FA. - coronavirus, Covid-19, false medicinal claims, fraud, religious beliefs.
1) “knowledge” and “dishonesty” are discrete and essential elements of fraud by false representation.
2) where counsel inadvertently gives erroneous information to jury, trial may proceed with correction by Judge.
R (Palmer Agencies Limited) v Belfast City Council [2023] NIKB 35 – Reg 4(2) TSR 2011. 1) fancy dress costumes sized for adults are not toys.
- “reasonably foreseeable use” of products will prevail over manufacturer’s declaration of intended use, but carnival costume not sized suitably for child under 14 cannot be toy as cannot have been designed or intended for someone of that age.
- expert evidence admissible on technical question (process and guidance to be followed in making determination under TSR).
- for purposes of judicial review, failure to take adequate account of material considerations, such as official Guidance, constitutes fundamental flaw in decision making process and is unlawful act.
2) impermissible to seek to achieve effect which only exercisable through statutory code.
- no scope to add to powers of relevant authorities on ad hoc basis.
- ultra vires to permanently detain goods when legislation only provides for temporary detention.
R v Rowan and Ors [2023] EWCA Crim 205 –S 78 PACE - ss 58 and 67 CJA 2003 - r 38.2 CrimPR. - conspiracy to commit fraud.
- P not required to always charge every person alleged to be party to a conspiracy.
- no substance in assertion that Ds charged with conspiracy unfairly prejudiced as could not challenge evidence of wrongdoing by co-conspirators not charged.
- requirement that P immediately inform court of intention to appeal against ruling in relation to trial on indictment must be strictly observed.
Latest Articles
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
Amending the Defendant’s Name Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.