14 Apr 2026
Sexual gratification on the part of the offender is not an essential element of the offence under s.146; the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to commit or incite the grossly indecent act 'with or towards' a child but need not prove an intention to obtain sexual gratification; 'with' and 'towards' do not create distinct offences in the context of s.146.
8 Jan 2020
Appellants are entitled to taxed costs of the original trial in the Court of First Instance and of the various appeal-related applications and appeals (including leave applications and bail/certification applications) together with a certificate for three counsel because the successful ground (latent duplicity) was substantive, there are insufficient positive reasons to deprive costs despite other rejected grounds at the Court of Appeal, and the Magistrates' Court costs shall form part of the retrial costs and be dealt with accordingly.
30 Aug 2019
The convictions were quashed because the indictment and the judge's agreed written directions treated particulars (a)–(e) as alternative dishonest means forming part of the conspiratorial agreement, creating a latent duplicity that could have resulted in conviction on different conspiracies or inconsistent combinations of conspirators without jury unanimity; retrial ordered.
30 Aug 2019
Particulars (a)–(e) in the indictment were treated at trial (by indictment language, agreed written directions, and a Kevin Brown direction) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; that framing created a latent duplicity because the jury could have convicted different defendants as parties to different conspiracies aggregated in a single count, undermining unanimity and rendering convictions unsafe — convictions therefore quashed and retrial ordered.
30 Aug 2019
The convictions were quashed because the indictment and agreed written directions treated particulars (a)–(e) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; the judge gave a Kevin Brown direction on those particulars, but that approach produced a latent duplicity risk that jurors may have convicted different appellants on different conspiracies rolled into single counts, thereby undermining required unanimity; retrial ordered and prosecution permitted to amend or prefer fresh indictment.
2 Feb 2018
Given the overwhelming prosecution evidence of a concerted scheme, identical modus operandi, centralised operation at Wincades and specific evidence connecting the applicant to the fraudulent activities, the Court concluded there was no real prospect of success on appeal and no basis to exercise discretion to grant bail pending appeal; application dismissed.
9 Nov 2016
Amended Charge 7 was not duplicitous because the various acts of dealing with bank deposits, concealed jewellery and cash were sufficiently connected and formed part of a continuing activity with the common purpose of concealing property of illicit origin; there was no demonstrated prejudice to the appellant as she advanced a common defence in respect of all items, no objection was raised at trial, and the trial judge gave detailed reasons addressing each explanation, so no substantial and grave injustice arose.
14 Aug 2015
The Court granted leave to appeal under s.32(2) Cap 484 because the questions raised are of great and general importance requiring appellate determination, notably on how duplicity and continuing-offence doctrines apply to s.25 OSCO and on the correct legal tests for the mens rea element of money laundering offences; the order to grant leave is dispositive of the application for leave.
5 Jun 2015
The Court granted leave to appeal against conviction for the 1st applicant on grounds 1–3 and to the 2nd applicant on all grounds except ground 3, refused leave on the 2nd applicant's ground 3 because the Court of Appeal is bound by Oei, and granted leave to both applicants to appeal their sentences because those grounds were reasonably arguable.
13 May 2015
Although the five charges were duplicitous because they aggregated many distinct deposits over lengthy periods, the defence suffered no prejudice because the prosecution particularised the incidents in expert reports and the defence addressed each tranche separately; the trial judge considered the accused’s evidence and surrounding circumstances (cash patterns, SJM cheques, Gold Wo transactions, unexplained transfers from father's accounts) and had an evidential basis to conclude a right‑thinking person would have reasonable grounds to believe the monies were proceeds of indictable offences;…