Testouri, Regina v: CACD 2 Dec 2003

The appellant challenged his conviction for conspiracy, saying that where only two parties were alleged to have been involved, differing verdicts could not be returned.
Held: The appeal was allowed. ‘In any case where what is alleged is a conspiracy to defraud, in which only two defendants are alleged to have participated, the judge should ask himself two questions. First: whether there is evidence of conspiracy to defraud? That means there must be evidence of an agreement to achieve a criminal purpose. If there is no evidence of that because, for example, on one view of the evidence only one defendant can be shown to have been dishonest then, if that view of the evidence is taken, both defendants must be acquitted and the jury must be so directed . . Secondly: whether there is any evidence admissible against only one defendant? If that evidence is or could be critical, in that without it that defendant cannot be shown to have been a party to the conspiracy alleged, then it will be necessary to explain to the jury how they may reach the conclusion that although the case is proved against that defendant, it is not proved against the defendant in relation to whom the evidence may not be admissible. Where there is no such evidence the jury must be told that it is not open to them to return different verdicts in relation to two defendants. ‘
Kennedy LJ, Curtis J, Forbes J
[2003] EWCA Crim 3735
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Blake and Tye 1844
Admissibility of admissions against co-conspirators. . .
CitedRegina v Longman and Cribben CACD 1981
The court considered the situation applying where a case alleging conspiracy proceeded differently against two defendants. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘Where at the close of the prosecution case the evidence against one of the defendants is such that it . .
CitedRegina v Roberts CACD 1987
The court considered the situation which arose when the cases against two defendants charged with conspiracy diverged.
Held: ‘Our reading of the relevant passage in the judgment of Longman’s case really comes to this. When a judge has to sum . .
CitedRegina v Ashton CACD 1992
The court held that the learned judge had been wrong in directing the jury that it was a situation in which they must return the same verdict in relation to each of the co-accused where they were charged with a conspiracy. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.234966