Romanenko, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 368 (05 April 2023)

Romanenko, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 368 (05 April 2023)

The amendment of the indictment did not cause injustice or prejudice as it narrowed the prosecution case and was based on the same evidence; however, the convictions on both alternative counts arising from the same facts was irregular and the conviction on count 2 (possession of criminal property) must be quashed.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 368
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant/appellant: Oleksandr Romanenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court at Luton
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction on count 2 quashed; conviction on count 1 upheld
Legal Topics
Amendment of Indictment, Alternative Counts, Possession of Criminal Property, Being Concerned in Supply of Controlled Drugs, Jury Directions, Appeal Out of Time
Criminal Law Amendment of Indictment Alternative Counts Possession of Criminal Property Being Concerned in Supply of Controlled Drugs Jury Directions Appeal Out of Time

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

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Oleksandr Romanenko

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court at Luton

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment of the indictment to substitute a substantive offence for conspiracy caused injustice or prejudice to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the jury could properly convict on both alternative counts arising from the same facts
  3. 3 Whether the conviction on count 2 (possession of criminal property) was irregular given the conviction on count 1 (being concerned in supply of cocaine)

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment of the indictment did not cause injustice or prejudice as it narrowed the prosecution case and was based on the same evidence; however, the convictions on both alternative counts arising from the same facts was irregular and the conviction on count 2 (possession of criminal property) must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction on count 2 quashed; conviction on count 1 upheld

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal granted
  • Conviction on count 2 (possession of criminal property) quashed