Hussain R. v

Hussain R. v

The appeals are allowed because the conspiracy counts were bad in law: the indictments and jury directions permitted conviction on the basis of suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was the proceeds of crime, whereas the law requires proof that the defendant knew the property was the proceeds of crime. Suspicion is insufficient for conspiracy under section 1(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as clarified by the House of Lords in Montila and applied in Harmer. The convictions are therefore unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Liaquat Ali; Appellant: Akhtar Hussain; Appellant: Mohsan Khan; Appellant: Shahid Bhatti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking, Criminal Procedure, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Conspiracy Money Laundering Drug Trafficking Criminal Procedure Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Liaquat Ali

Appellant

Akhtar Hussain

Appellant

Mohsan Khan

Appellant

Shahid Bhatti

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of prior convictions of co-conspirators
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence on banknote contamination
  3. 3 Whether the conspiracy counts were bad in law for failing to allege an agreement amounting to conspiracy under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are allowed because the conspiracy counts were bad in law: the indictments and jury directions permitted conviction on the basis of suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was the proceeds of crime, whereas the law requires proof that the defendant knew the property was the proceeds of crime. Suspicion is insufficient for conspiracy under section 1(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as clarified by the House of Lords in Montila and applied in Harmer. The convictions are therefore unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions of Liaquat Ali, Akhtar Hussain, Mohsan Khan, and Shahid Bhatti quashed
  • No retrial ordered