K, G & M, R. v

K, G & M, R. v

The particulars in the indictment did not constitute essential ingredients of the offence of conspiracy to defraud; the jury need only be unanimous that there was an agreement to defraud by making dishonest representations about the company, not on any specific representation. The judge’s direction was correct and there was no misdirection.

Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: K; Appellant: G; Appellant: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Jury Unanimity, Indictment Particulars, Misdirection, Fraud
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Jury Unanimity Indictment Particulars Misdirection Fraud

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

K

Appellant

G

Appellant

M

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury must be unanimous as to at least one specific representation alleged in the particulars of the indictment for conspiracy to defraud
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the ingredients of the offence and the particulars
  3. 3 Degree of specificity required in the agreement alleged for conspiracy to defraud

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars in the indictment did not constitute essential ingredients of the offence of conspiracy to defraud; the jury need only be unanimous that there was an agreement to defraud by making dishonest representations about the company, not on any specific representation. The judge’s direction was correct and there was no misdirection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for leave to appeal refused
  • Convictions upheld