Loizou, Regina v: CACD 14 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against her conviction for assisting in the disposal of the proceeds of criminal activity, saying that the judge had incorrectly ruled that she had waived legal privilege as to the advice given to her at the police station, and that an inference could be drawn under section 34. Under cross examination she had said not only that she had been advised to make no comment, but also the reasons for it. She said that she had given her solicitor the version of events she put forward at trial.
Held: Once the defendant had opened up the suggested reason for her silence, it allowed opposing counsel to probe whether that reason could possibly explain not saying (as she now was saying at trial) that she was an innocent dupe who had no connection with the transaction in question except as an interpreter. Waiver, when it occurs, is not all or nothing. Waiver can be, and often is, partial. In every case of waiver, the question what the waiver has let in is determined by the test of fairness, or, to put it another way, what is necessary to avoid there being left a misleading impression by revelation of part only of the privileged communications, or the defendant, in colloquial terms, ‘having his cake and eating it’.
Criminal property within section 327 meant property which was already criminal at the time of the transfer, by reason of constituting or representing a benefit from earlier criminal conduct and not the conduct which was the subject of the indictment.


Hooper LJ, Leveson, Beatson JJ


[2006] EWCA Crim 1719, [2005] 2 CAR 618




Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 327(1)(d), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34


England and Wales


CitedBurnell v British Transport Commission CA 1956
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. When his witness was cross-examined on his earlier statement, he agreed he had made the statement. Counsel for the Plaintiff asked to see the whole statement. Counsel for the Defendant objected on . .
CitedNea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .
See AlsoRegina v L, G etc CACD 17-Jun-2005
A cash sum of andpound;87,000 was transferred. The defendants appealed against a ruling under the 1996 Act, saying that at the time of its transfer, the property did not represent criminal property under the Act.
Held: The pre-conditions for . .

Cited by:

CitedSeaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
CitedRe D (a child) CA 14-Jun-2011
In the course of care proceedings, the mother had revised her version of events, and then explained why. The father sought disclosure of the attendance notes of her solicitor, saying that she had waived any privilege in the advice given. She now . .
CitedGH, Regina v SC 22-Apr-2015
Appeal against conviction for entering into an arrangement for the retention of criminal funds. The defendant said that at the time of the arrangement there were not yet any criminal funds in existence. A had set up websites intending to con . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243406