Golam-Rassoude & Anor, R. v

An acquittal on an earlier count is ordinarily irrelevant at a later trial because it records only the earlier jury’s opinion. It may be admissible where it has special relevance, such as a connection with evidence common to both trials, but the trial judge retains a discretion.

Double jeopardy does not prevent relevant evidence concerning the offence of which the defendant was acquitted being used to prove a different count, provided the defendant is neither retried nor punished for the acquitted offence. Criminal law recognises no issue estoppel. Article 6(2) does not prevent a retrial on a different count where the presumption of innocence is maintained. A judge may admit evidence of the source crime where it is needed to assess whether the defendant knew or suspected that property was criminal property, subject to Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 78 fairness.

The applicants, husband and wife, were convicted at the Crown Court at Blackfriars on a retrial of converting or transferring criminal property and each received four and a half years’ imprisonment. At their first trial they had been acquitted of fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing Class A drugs, while the jury could not reach a verdict on the criminal-property count.

At the retrial, the prosecution relied on evidence that packages connected with the applicants contained drugs and on substantial cash handling said to be money laundering. The trial judge permitted that presentation but refused to admit the prior acquittals. The applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal, contending that both rulings, and the summing-up, were unfair. The central issue was whether the prior acquittal barred the use of the drugs evidence or required disclosure to the retrial jury.

Held

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. The convictions were safe.
2. The outcome of an earlier trial is generally irrelevant and inadmissible because it is no more than the earlier jury’s opinion. There are limited exceptions where the acquittal has special evidential relevance to the later case. As R v Terry [2005] QB 996 illustrates, that may occur where the acquittal is arguably attributable to evidence common to both trials or otherwise relevant to an issue in the second trial. The word “may” confirms the trial judge’s discretion.
3. Double jeopardy did not bar the evidence. The applicants were not retried or liable to punishment for the drugs-importation count. The question at the retrial was whether they knew or suspected that the cash was criminal property. Relevant evidence from the earlier events could be used to decide that separate question. Nor did the acquittal create issue estoppel: it showed only that the first jury was not sure of guilt on count 1.
4. Article 6(2) did not alter that conclusion. The authorities concerning post-acquittal compensation proceedings did not govern a retrial on a different count in which the presumption of innocence continued to apply. There was also no relevant procedural connection of the kind considered in Serious Organised Crime Agency v Gale [2011] UKSC 49.
5. The evidence that the packages contained drugs was properly admitted. The jury could not fairly assess the applicants’ explanation for the very large cash movements without the whole evidential context. The counts did not completely overlap, and count 2 required proof of knowledge or suspicion about the cash rather than proof that the applicants knowingly participated in drug importation. The prior acquittals had no evidential value capable of assisting the retrial jury, unlike the special circumstances in R v Terry and R v Blerim Hajdarmataj [2019] EWCA Crim 303.
6. The trial judge was best placed to assess fairness under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There was no unfairness in the rulings or in the agreed directions. It was unnecessary to determine whether an extension of time was required.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 704, refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 10 June 2019, following a retrial, convicted both applicants of converting or transferring criminal property. At the first trial they had been acquitted of the drugs-importation count, but the jury had not reached a verdict on the criminal-property count.