Singh, R v

A count of statutory conspiracy is not duplicitous merely because the agreed course of conduct may involve one of two alternative substantive offences. The offence charged is the agreement, and one agreement may contemplate the commission of more than one offence.

Under section 1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, an agreement to commit an unlawful act depends on intention or knowledge. A reference to reasonable grounds for suspicion, drawn from a substantive money-laundering offence, was immaterial where the real issue was an intention to launder illicit money. Fresh evidence must be capable of belief and capable of rendering the conviction unsafe. A deliberate absence from trial does not make the trial unfair where the defendant was effectively represented and the conviction remains safe.

The appellant was tried in his absence in the Crown Court at Leicester and convicted of three conspiracies to launder proceeds of drug trafficking and/or other criminal conduct. The prosecution relied on evidence of large currency exchanges, surveillance, bureau-de-change records and the appellant’s admissions.

He challenged the indictment, the directions on mens rea and purpose, the allegation of a single conspiracy, identification evidence and non-disclosure that a bureau owner had been a participating informant. After surrendering following the trial, he also asserted that his absence had been involuntary because he had been abducted and detained in Belgium. The central issues were whether any of those matters rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. The court refused the renewed and original applications for leave to appeal against conviction. The supplied judgment records no separate disposition of the renewed sentence application.
2. The indictment alleged one statutory conspiracy, not alternative conspiracies. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes the agreement the offence. A single agreed course of conduct may necessarily involve one or more substantive offences. Following R v Husain [2002] 2 Cr App R 363, an agreement to launder money from drug trafficking or other criminal conduct was therefore not bad for duplicity or uncertainty.
3. For a conspiracy, section 1(2) requires the parties to intend or know that a material fact or circumstance will exist when the agreed conduct occurs. In this case, the phrase reasonable grounds to suspect, taken from the substantive money-laundering offences, was an immaterial averment. The prosecution case was an agreement and intention to launder illicit money. The judge’s directions adequately conveyed that issue. Nor was there a separate duplicity point about the purpose of laundering; intent and purpose were the same in the context of the charged conspiracy.
4. There was ample evidence of one continuing agreement. The judge was not required to invite speculative consideration of multiple individual conspiracies where no factual basis supported it. The identification directions were adequate, and the late disclosure concerning Mr Sharif could not have affected the verdict because his evidence was limited and substantial independent evidence identified the appellant.
5. Applying R v Pendleton [2002] 1 WLR 72, the court had to form its own view of the proposed fresh evidence and ask whether it raised a doubt about safety. The appellant bore a burden of persuasion, not merely an evidential burden. His account of abduction and prolonged captivity was incapable of belief and could not afford a ground for allowing the appeal.
6. In any event, the voluntary absence did not make the trial unfair. The right to be present must be assessed consistently with article 6, but a defendant who deliberately stays away may waive that right. Applying R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] 2 WLR 524, the court found the conviction safe, particularly given the strength of the evidence and the appellant’s effective representation by fully instructed counsel. The trial judge was also correct that arrest of judgment was not the proper means to resolve a contested post-trial claim about absence and fairness.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused all further applications for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Leicester: the appellant was tried in his absence, convicted on three conspiracy counts on 18 September 2001, and sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years’ imprisonment. On 28 February 2002 the trial judge rejected his motion in arrest of judgment seeking a retrial.