R v Andrew Nathaniel Skeene & Anor

R v Andrew Nathaniel Skeene & Anor

The indictment was sufficiently particularised and followed established precedent; particulars were not essential elements requiring jury unanimity. The judge's directions and summing up were full and fair. Dishonesty was properly addressed. The factual witness's evidence was admissible. Sentences imposed were appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the scale of fraud and lack of proven residual asset value.

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 / Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave refused except on Ground 1, which was dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Misconduct in Winding Up, Indictment Particulars, Dishonesty, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Misconduct in Winding Up Indictment Particulars Dishonesty Expert Evidence Admissibility Sentencing Principles

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Andrew Nathaniel Skeene

Appellant

Junie Conrad Omari Bowers

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment for conspiracy to defraud was defective for lack of specificity
  2. 2 Whether the judge's legal directions and summing up were adequate
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was sufficiently particularised and followed established precedent; particulars were not essential elements requiring jury unanimity. The judge's directions and summing up were full and fair. Dishonesty was properly addressed. The factual witness's evidence was admissible. Sentences imposed were appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the scale of fraud and lack of proven residual asset value.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave refused except on Ground 1, which was dismissed.

Orders

  • Renewed applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused.
  • Conviction and sentences affirmed.