R v Jason Rowan & Ors

R v Jason Rowan & Ors

The judge's exclusion of evidence relating to customer dealings with uncharged sales representatives was based on an error of law and principle, as there is no requirement to charge all alleged co-conspirators. The exclusion was also unreasonable, as no substantial unfair prejudice to the defendants was identified. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any speculative prejudice.

Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: Jason Rowan; Respondent: Catherine Rowan; Respondent: Stephen Tomlinson; Respondent: David Beeson; Respondent: Christopher Simpson; Respondent: Bohdan Zacharko; Respondent: Philip Eremenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Ruling
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Fraud, Admissibility of Evidence, Reporting Restrictions, Money Laundering
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Conspiracy Fraud Admissibility of Evidence Reporting Restrictions Money Laundering

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

Jason Rowan

Respondent

Catherine Rowan

Respondent

Stephen Tomlinson

Respondent

David Beeson

Respondent

Christopher Simpson

Respondent

Bohdan Zacharko

Respondent

Philip Eremenko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence relating to covertly recorded films and customer testimony involving uncharged sales representatives should be excluded for unfairness under section 78 of PACE
  2. 2 Whether prosecution must charge all alleged co-conspirators to rely on their conduct as evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's exclusion of evidence was wrong in law or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's exclusion of evidence relating to customer dealings with uncharged sales representatives was based on an error of law and principle, as there is no requirement to charge all alleged co-conspirators. The exclusion was also unreasonable, as no substantial unfair prejudice to the defendants was identified. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any speculative prejudice.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted against the ruling of 23rd January only.
  • Judge's decision excluding customer evidence relating to uncharged sales representatives reversed; such evidence is admissible.