Ahmed, R v

A conviction is unsafe where the jury were directed in accordance with the law as then understood, but the direction does not accord with the proper approach later identified by the House of Lords to the relevant conspiracy offence.

When deciding whether to order a retrial after quashing such a conviction, the court may give substantial weight to the seriousness and scale of the alleged criminality and the public interest in a proper determination. Delay, the defendant’s age, completion of the original sentence and payment of compensation may be material, but need not outweigh those considerations. The absence of a special reason to treat the defendant differently from others whose convictions have been quashed may support a retrial.

The appellant was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court on 12 February 2003 of conspiracy to launder money, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that it represented the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. He received four and a half years’ imprisonment and was made subject to a compensation order.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the conviction following the House of Lords decision in Saik. The Crown accepted that the jury direction, although consistent with the law at the time of trial, rendered the conviction unsafe. The issue was whether the conviction should be quashed and, if so, whether a retrial should be ordered despite the elapsed time and the appellant having served his sentence.

Disposition

1. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.
2. The jury direction had accorded with the law as it was understood at trial. However, it did not accord with the proper approach to conspiracy identified by the House of Lords in Saik. The court agreed with the Crown that the resulting conviction was unsafe.
3. A retrial was appropriate. The appellant’s age, the fact that the conduct alleged dated from October 2000, his completion of the custodial sentence and his payment of compensation were relevant considerations. They did not displace the strong public interest in trying an alleged money-laundering conspiracy of exceptional seriousness.
4. The alleged conspiracy concerned laundering of about £12 million. Although the appellant’s direct involvement had been assessed at about £1.38 million, the alleged criminality remained very serious. The court also noted that other convictions affected by the House of Lords decision had been quashed and retrials ordered. It identified no special reason to treat this appellant differently.
5. A fresh indictment was to be preferred and the appellant re-arraigned within two months. He was granted unconditional bail pending trial. A representation order was made for one counsel and a solicitor, subject to a further application if that level proved inappropriate. A defendant’s costs order was made for the costs of the Criminal Cases Review Commission referral.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.
• Wood Green Crown Court: On 12 February 2003, convicted the appellant of conspiracy to launder money and imposed four and a half years’ imprisonment with a compensation order.