Rush & Anor v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 442 (19 March 2026)

Rush & Anor v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 442 (19 March 2026)

The jury did not need to be sure that the appellants knew the precise mechanics of the VAT fraud (i.e., the VOIP off-setting) to convict; it was sufficient that they knowingly joined the broad conspiracy to cheat the public revenue as charged. The trial judge's directions were legally correct and consistent with the indictment and relevant authorities. There was no error in refusing to allow the defence to argue for a lesser or separate conspiracy, nor in the directions on executory intent and participation.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Crim 442
Parties
Appellant: Nigel Rush; Appellant: Alec Leighton; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal and Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Rush's appeal dismissed; Leighton's renewed application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Cheating the Public Revenue, VAT Fraud, Jury Directions, Scope of Conspiracy, Mens Rea
Criminal Law Conspiracy Cheating the Public Revenue VAT Fraud Jury Directions Scope of Conspiracy Mens Rea

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

Parties

Nigel Rush

Appellant

Alec Leighton

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal and Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury was properly directed on the scope of the conspiracy under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the mechanics of the VAT fraud (specifically VOIP off-setting) was required for conviction
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the defence to argue for a lesser or separate conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The jury did not need to be sure that the appellants knew the precise mechanics of the VAT fraud (i.e., the VOIP off-setting) to convict; it was sufficient that they knowingly joined the broad conspiracy to cheat the public revenue as charged. The trial judge's directions were legally correct and consistent with the indictment and relevant authorities. There was no error in refusing to allow the defence to argue for a lesser or separate conspiracy, nor in the directions on executory intent and participation.

Court Disposition

Rush's appeal dismissed; Leighton's renewed application for leave to appeal refused.