Ramadan El-Delbi, R v

An accused who seeks to establish good character may be questioned about a foreign judicial finding of guilt which remains subject to appeal, even where foreign law does not yet treat it as a final conviction. The finding is more than a mere allegation. A limited and neutral reference may be permitted to prevent the jury receiving a false picture of character.

A direction on silence is sufficient where it makes clear that an adverse inference depends on the Crown disproving any good reason for the silence, including any genuine explanation based on legal advice or lack of understanding. Sentences near the maximum for laundering drug-trafficking proceeds are reserved for laundering on a very large scale.

The appellant was convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of drug trafficking or criminal conduct, and of attempting to remove the proceeds of drug trafficking. He had been arrested at Heathrow while attempting to leave the United Kingdom with more than £500,000 in cash.

He received concurrent sentences of 12 years’ imprisonment and appealed against conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal challenged the refusal of a good-character direction in light of a Dutch finding of guilt which was under appeal, and the directions on adverse inferences from his silence in interview. The sentence appeal challenged the length of the concurrent terms.

1. Disposition. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed. Concurrent sentences of 12 years’ imprisonment were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 10 years.
2. Character evidence. The judge correctly refused to permit the appellant to present himself simply as a person with no previous convictions while concealing a Dutch court’s finding of guilt for similar conduct. Under Criminal Evidence Act 1898, section 1 permits questions tending to show that an accused has committed, been convicted of, or been charged with an offence when he seeks to establish his own good character. The foreign finding was not a mere charge or allegation. It followed a hearing before an independent court and could properly be raised, whether or not Dutch law regarded it as a final conviction pending appeal. The proposed limited and neutral formulation properly balanced the need to avoid misleading the jury against the risk of prejudice. The appellant chose not to raise character on those terms; there was therefore no evidential basis for a good-character direction.
3. Silence. Read as a whole, the summing-up made clear that an adverse inference could be drawn only if the Crown established that there was no good reason for the appellant’s failure to answer questions. The appellant did not say that he had remained silent in reliance on legal advice. He said that he had chosen between answering all questions or none. The judge also left to the jury his claim that language difficulties prevented him from understanding the caution. No further direction was required.
4. Sentence. Those laundering substantial drug proceeds perform an essential role and may receive severe sentences. Nevertheless, Parliament set a maximum of 14 years for money laundering, distinct from the life maximum for Class A drug supply. There is no direct arithmetical relationship between the amount laundered and sentence, but sentences close to the statutory maximum are reserved for proved laundering on a very large scale. The appellant’s conduct was serious, but did not justify 12 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2003] EWCA Crim 1767, dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting concurrent terms of 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Isleworth Crown Court (HHJ McDowell) — Convicted the appellant by a majority of conspiracy to deal with criminal or drug-trafficking proceeds and attempting to remove drug-trafficking proceeds; imposed concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.