R v Oleksandr Romanenko

R v Oleksandr Romanenko

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 two counts were alternatives and the jury should not have been invited to return verdicts on both. The conviction on count 2 was irregular and must be quashed, but the conviction on count 1 is safe.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant/appellant: Oleksandr Romanenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction on count 2 quashed; conviction on count 1 upheld.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Indictment, Alternative Verdicts, Possession of Criminal Property, Supply of Controlled Drugs, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Amendment of Indictment Alternative Verdicts Possession of Criminal Property Supply of Controlled Drugs Jury Directions

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Oleksandr Romanenko

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Extension of Time

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 counts when they were alternatives
  3. 3 Whether the conviction on count 2 (possession of criminal property) was safe given the alternative nature of the counts

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 two counts were alternatives and the jury should not have been invited to return verdicts on both. The conviction on count 2 was irregular and must be quashed, but the conviction on count 1 is safe.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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