The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered into corrupt agreemets to boost sales, sweetener payments being said to have been made by their agents. They complained that contrary to principle the allegation against them had been allowed to develop and change through the trial.
Held: Those charged with a conspiracy may have sought to achieve the common aim by different means, and it was not necessary to prove that all of the conspirators were aware of the full range of ways in which the common purpose might be executed.
Count 2 was an unnecessary distraction in this case and the jury should have been invited to consider count 1 alone, which encompassed the broader and the narrower bases discussed above. However, no injustice has resulted following the acquittal of both applicants on count 1 and their conviction on count 2, and in consequence the application for leave to appeal against conviction failed as regards both applicants.
However the appeals against sentences were successful.
Fulford LJ, MacDuff J, Elisabeth Laing DBE J
[2014] EWCA Crim 1863
Bailii
Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Johal and Ram 1972
Ashworth J said: ‘The argument for the appellants appeared to involve the proposition that an indictment, in order to be defective, must be one which in law did not charge any offence at all and therefore is bad on the face of it. We do not take . .
Cited – Regina v Radley CACD 1973
On a single count indictment alleging conspiracy to defraud, after the Prosecution opening it amended by addition counts to cater for the possibility that more than one conspiracy had existed; This made the case easier for the Jury and no injustice . .
Cited – Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi CCA 1929
The first count of the indictment alleged that the former police sergeant Goddard and the: ‘two appellants on divers days between the 1st October 1924 and the 24th November 1928 in the County of London, conspired together, and with one Anna Gadda, . .
Cited – Regina v Griffiths and Others CCA 1965
A supplier of lime and his employee were accused of conspiring with seven farmers to defraud the Ministry by submitting excessive subsidy claims. They were also charged with fraudulently obtaining money from the Ministry. There was no evidence that . .
Cited – Regina v Coughlan and Young CACD 1976
Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect . .
Cited – Mehta v Regina CACD 31-Dec-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. His co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator had been acquitted.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. The defence knew that they were going to have to deal with the . .
At Outer House – Cramaso Llp v Viscount Reidhaven’s Trustees SCS 11-May-2010
Outer House – The pursuer said that it had been misled into taking a lease of a grouse moor by the responders making a repesentation to Mr Erskine who had conducted negotiations, and then created the pursuer as a vehicle for the lease. He sought the . .
Cited – Ahmed Ali and Others, Regina v CACD 19-May-2011
Defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to murder on allegations of intended terrorism. In essence they complained of having been tried twice on substantially the same facts. The court accepted that a defendant who was . .
Cited – Shillam v Regina CACD 22-Feb-2013
The appellant was given leave to appeal on the single ground that the direction given by the judge in response to a note from the jury allowed the possibility that the appellant and his co-accused were convicted of the offence charged without the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bhatti and Others v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2015
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law, saying that they had been based on evidence obtained by the police from credit reference agencies in breach of their rights under the 1984 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.536780