El-Kurd & Ors, R v

El-Kurd & Ors, R v

The convictions are unsafe because the indictments and trial directions permitted conviction on a lesser mental element than the law requires. The central issue at trial was the appellants' knowledge or intention regarding the criminal provenance of the money, and the jury was not properly directed on this point. The court cannot be satisfied that, properly directed, the only reasonable and proper verdict would have been guilty. The defects in the indictments did not render them nullities, but the misdirection on mens rea was fundamental. Substitution of convictions for substantive offences is not appropriate, but retrials are in the interests of justice.

Parties
Prosecutor: R; Appellant: El-Kurd; Appellant: Sakavickas; Appellant: Reichwald; Appellant: Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Following Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
Convictions quashed; retrials ordered
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Conspiracy, Mens Rea, Indictment Defects, Retrial, Change in Law
Criminal Law Money Laundering Conspiracy Mens Rea Indictment Defects Retrial Change in Law

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 4 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecutor

El-Kurd

Appellant

Sakavickas

Appellant

Reichwald

Appellant

Singh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Following Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions for conspiracy to commit money laundering offences are unsafe due to misdirection on mens rea following a change in the understanding of the law
  2. 2 Whether defects in the indictments render the convictions unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the court should substitute convictions for substantive offences or order retrials

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are unsafe because the indictments and trial directions permitted conviction on a lesser mental element than the law requires. The central issue at trial was the appellants' knowledge or intention regarding the criminal provenance of the money, and the jury was not properly directed on this point. The court cannot be satisfied that, properly directed, the only reasonable and proper verdict would have been guilty. The defects in the indictments did not render them nullities, but the misdirection on mens rea was fundamental. Substitution of convictions for substantive offences is not appropriate, but retrials are in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; retrials ordered

Orders

  • Convictions of El-Kurd, Sakavickas, Reichwald, and Singh quashed
  • No substitution of convictions for substantive offences under section 93A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988