R v RK and LK [2008] NSWCCA 338

R v RK and LK [2008] NSWCCA 338

The Crown case alleged that the respondents were only reckless as to whether the money was proceeds of crime and did not allege that they knew the money was proceeds of crime. A charge of conspiracy under s 11.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code requires that the accused know the facts that make the intended conduct an offence. Because the Crown case could not satisfy that requirement, the alleged conspiracy was not an offence known to law on the case presented, and it was open to the trial judge to direct verdicts of acquittal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against an Acquittal by Direction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court Decision of Sweeney DCJ Directing Verdicts of Not Guilty
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy' 'money Laundering' 'fault Elements' 'recklessness' 'knowledge' 'commonwealth Criminal Code' 'crown Appeal Against Acquittal by Direction']
['criminal Law'] ['conspiracy' 'money Laundering' 'fault Elements' 'recklessness' 'knowledge' 'commonwealth Criminal Code' 'crown Appeal Against Acquittal by Direction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against an Acquittal by Direction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court Decision of Sweeney DCJ Directing Verdicts of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether persons can conspire at common law or under the Commonwealth Criminal Code to commit an offence for which recklessness is the fault element.' 'Whether a conspiracy charge under ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code can be made out where the Crown alleges only that the accused were reckless as to the fact that money was proceeds of crime.' 'Whether R v Ansari required proof that the accused knew all facts making the intended conduct criminal.' 'Whether the trial judge should have directed verdicts of acquittal rather than quashing the indictments.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown case alleged that the respondents were only reckless as to whether the money was proceeds of crime and did not allege that they knew the money was proceeds of crime. A charge of conspiracy under s 11.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code requires that the accused know the facts that make the intended conduct an offence. Because the Crown case could not satisfy that requirement, the alleged conspiracy was not an offence known to law on the case presented, and it was open to the trial judge to direct verdicts of acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal should be dismissed.']