The RCPO responded to a succession of appeals against conviction in historic money-laundering prosecutions (in the light of the House of Lords decision in R v Saik [2006] 2 WLR 993 regarding the mens rea for conspiracy). At least 65 historic prosecutions were said to be potentially affected.

 

The lead appeal of Suchedina [2006] EWCA Crim 2543 clarified the law on (i) the continuing validity of the El-Kurd-type ‘either/or’ conspiracy (ii) the primacy of the ‘intention’ requirement rather than the ‘knowledge’ requirement in laundering conspiracies and (iii) the absence of any requirement to prove the provenance of the cash in ‘intention’ cases.

 

In Ramzan [2006] EWCA Crim 1947 it was affirmed that the Court of Appeal should not generally grant leave to appeal against historic convictions on the basis of a subsequent change in the law.

 

In the most recent batch of appeals in this series, El-Kurd, Sakavickas, Reichwald & Singh [2007] EWCA Crim 1888/2007, it was established what should be the Court’s approach where there has been a fundamental misdirection on the essential ingredients of the offence, but where any reasonable jury, properly directed, must have convicted the appellant.

 

Arising from the appeals in El-Kurd, Sakavickas, Reichwald & Singh, submissions were made on behalf of the Director of RCPO (intervening as an interested party in the appeals of Cottrell and Fletcher [2007] EWCA Crim 2016) on the question of the relationship between the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. These were successful and the resulting judgment has been characterised as a case of “constitutional significance”.