Kinneir, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 902 (19th April, 2002)

Kinneir, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 902 (19th April, 2002)

The convictions on counts 1, 2, 10, and 20 are unsafe and must be quashed because the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the distinction between a loan and an investment, and there was insufficient evidence of the appellant's involvement in count 10. The other convictions are safe as there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's participation in the fraudulent scheme.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 902
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Perry Kinneir
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions on counts 1, 2, 10, and 20 quashed; other convictions upheld; application to amend grounds of appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Theft, Furnishing False Information, Jury Directions, Joint Enterprise, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Theft Furnishing False Information Jury Directions Joint Enterprise Appeal Against Conviction

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

Parties

R

Respondent

Perry Kinneir

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the law of theft were adequate and correct for counts 1, 2, and 20
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support convictions on counts 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 19
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to amend grounds of appeal to include count 3 out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts 1, 2, 10, and 20 are unsafe and must be quashed because the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the distinction between a loan and an investment, and there was insufficient evidence of the appellant's involvement in count 10. The other convictions are safe as there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's participation in the fraudulent scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions on counts 1, 2, 10, and 20 quashed; other convictions upheld; application to amend grounds of appeal refused.

Orders

  • Convictions on counts 1, 2, 10, and 20 quashed.
  • Other convictions stand.