Thomas, R v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
- MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL DBE
- MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolved around the appellant's conviction for conspiracy to possess criminal property, challenged on the grounds of mens rea misdirection. The appellant, a chauffeur, delivered three bags with £189,000 in cash without knowledge of the contents. The court quashed the conviction, emphasizing that suspicion cannot suffice as mens rea for conspiracy to possess criminal property; the required mens rea is knowledge, as established in R v Saik.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE DAVIS: The appellant was convicted on 14th February 2014, after a trial at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Peter Thornton QC and a jury, of a count of conspiracy to possess criminal property. The trial was conducted and the jury was directed in the summing-up on the footing that the appellant could be guilty of the offence if either he knew or he suspected that the property was criminal property. It is now said that the conviction is irredeemably flawed in that suspicion could not have been the applicable mens rea for the offence of conspiracy to possess criminal property as charged. The applicable mens rea could only, in the circumstances of a case of such as this, be knowledge. The Crown before us concede that to be so. We agree. The appeal, for which leave had previously been granted by the single judge, must therefore be allowed and the conviction quashed.
The facts can be shortly stated for present purposes and are these. At the relevant time the appellant was working as a full-time chauffeur and courier. Indeed his employer was one of those to attend court on his behalf and give him a glowing reference. On the day in question he had been contacted by a man calling himself "Jaz" who enquired whether the appellant was available to deliver some paperwork to a destination in Southall. The appellant made some enquiries of Jaz as to how he had attained his details. He received what he considered an acceptable explanation and agreed to meet Jaz and then deliver the package to an industrial estate in Southall. He met Jaz at a location in Battersea and agreed a fee of £60. He took possession from Jaz of three bags which he placed on the back seat of the car. Accordingly to him he entered the post code of where he was going into his navigation system and started his journey. During the journey he was contacted at least three times by Jaz for updates as to where he was. Upon arriving at the address in Southall he was contacted by Jaz again over the phone and was told that he should wait for someone to come to the car. A man, who he now knows to be Mr Jawad Khan, approached the car and sat in the front seat. The appellant informed him that the bags were on the back seat. The man then got out of the car and took the bags with him. As the appellant was driving away he was stopped and arrested by the police.
Jawad Khan and another man called Singh were themselves arrested at the industrial estate. Khan was in possession