Skeene & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 17 (21 January 2025)

Skeene & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 17 (21 January 2025)

The indictment was not defective; it contained a clear statement of the offence and sufficient particulars to inform the defendants of the case to meet and to prevent the prosecution from shifting its ground. The particulars after 'by dishonestly' were means, not essential elements, and did not require jury...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 17
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Andrew Nathaniel Skeene; Appellant: Junie Conrad Omari Bowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Misconduct in Winding Up, Indictment Particularity, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Misconduct in Winding Up Indictment Particularity Jury Directions Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Andrew Nathaniel Skeene

Appellant

Junie Conrad Omari Bowers

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment for conspiracy to defraud was sufficiently particularised
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were legally adequate
  3. 3 Whether the convictions for conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in winding up were safe

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was not defective; it contained a clear statement of the offence and sufficient particulars to inform the defendants of the case to meet and to prevent the prosecution from shifting its ground. The particulars after 'by dishonestly' were means, not essential elements, and did not require jury unanimity. The judge's directions were legally adequate. The convictions were safe and the sentences not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Convictions and sentences affirmed