Da Silva, R. v

Da Silva, R. v

The judge's direction that 'any inkling or fleeting thought' would suffice for suspicion under section 93A(1)(a) was a technical misdirection, as suspicion must be more than fanciful, but need not be reasonable or firmly grounded. However, this misdirection does not render the conviction unsafe given the strength of the evidence.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Hilda Gondwe Da Silva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Assisting Retention of Proceeds of Crime, Interpretation of 'suspecting' in Criminal Statutes, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Assisting Retention of Proceeds of Crime Interpretation of 'suspecting' in Criminal Statutes Jury Directions

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Hilda Gondwe Da Silva

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by defining 'suspecting' using a dictionary definition and the phrase 'fleeting thought'
  2. 2 Whether the statutory term 'suspecting' in section 93A(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires reasonable grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's direction that 'any inkling or fleeting thought' would suffice for suspicion under section 93A(1)(a) was a technical misdirection, as suspicion must be more than fanciful, but need not be reasonable or firmly grounded. However, this misdirection does not render the conviction unsafe given the strength of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld