Introduction

Skeene & Anor v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 17) is a pivotal judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on January 21, 2025. The case involves the appellants, Mr. Andrew Nathaniel Skeene and Mr. Junie Conrad Omari Bowers, who sought permission to appeal their convictions and sentences related to multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in the course of winding up. The primary focus of the appeal centered on the adequacy of the indictment in defining the conspiracy to defraud and whether the court erred in its legal directions to the jury.

The appellants were convicted of orchestrating three major investment fraud schemes—Belem Sky, Para Sky, and Para Grosso—collectively defrauding investors of approximately £37 million. Additionally, they faced a count of misconduct during the winding up of their company, GFI Consultants Ltd, resulting in their imprisonment for a total of 11 years.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal thoroughly examined the appellants' claims that the indictment was defective due to insufficient specificity in defining the conspiracy to defraud. The appellants argued that the lack of detailed particulars in the indictment necessitated a jury unanimity on each specific act alleged, which they contended was not appropriately directed by the trial judge.

The appellate court upheld the original convictions, affirming that the indictment adequately distinguished between the essential elements of conspiracy to defraud and the particulars detailing the means employed to execute the fraud. The court dismissed the appellants' grounds for appeal, reinforcing existing legal standards regarding the formulation of indictments in conspiracy cases.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced foundational cases that shape the legal framework for conspiracy to defraud:

• Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1975]: Established that the object of a conspiracy to defraud includes dishonestly depriving someone of their property.
• R v Landy [1981]: Highlighted the necessity of clear jury directions regarding the essential elements of conspiracy to defraud, particularly emphasizing unanimity on dishonesty.
• R v Hancock [1996]: Affirmed that detailed particulars in indictments serve to outline the prosecution's case without constituting essential elements requiring jury unanimity.
• Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1982) [1983] QB 751: Clarified that the true object of a conspiracy should be discerned from the defendants' actual agreement, not just the resulting harm.
• R v K [2005]: Addressed the necessity for specificity in indictments, although ultimately upheld the approach taken in Hancock.
• R v SA and others [2019] EWCA Crim 144: Provided a comprehensive summary of relevant principles, reinforcing the need for indictments to define conspiracies clearly without being overly prescriptive.
• R v Evans [2014]: Emphasized the importance of sufficient particulars in indictments to prevent prosecution from shifting grounds during trial.
• R v Barton [2020]: Demonstrated an alternative indictment form that clearly distinguishes between essential elements and particulars, serving as a comparative reference.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of the Indictments Act 1915 and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, which require indictments to clearly state the offence and provide sufficient particulars to inform the defense and jury of the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that:

• Distinction Between Essential Elements and Particulars: The indictment must separate the core elements of the offence (e.g., agreement to defraud) from the detailed acts used to execute the conspiracy. This ensures that the prosecution's case is clear without imposing redundant requirements on the jury.
• Purpose of Particulars: Particulars serve to give a clear picture of the prosecution's allegations, preventing the prosecution from altering its case midway. They are not designed to expand the essential elements of the offence.
• Jury Directions: The trial judge adequately instructed the jury to differentiate between the overarching conspiracy and the specific means alleged, ensuring that the jury's unanimity was focused on the existence of the conspiracy itself, not necessarily on each detailed act.
• Consistency with Established Case Law: The court reaffirmed that the approach taken was consistent with precedents like Hancock and Landy, which have established the boundaries for indictment particulars in conspiracy cases.

Additionally, the court addressed the appellants' claims regarding the lack of a specific dishonesty direction and the admissibility of the prosecution witness Mr. Phillips' evidence. The appellate court found no merit in these grounds, asserting that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and that any criticisms did not undermine the integrity of the verdict.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the established legal framework governing indictments for conspiracy to defraud. It clarifies that while particulars in an indictment must be detailed enough to outline the prosecution's case, they do not expand the essential elements of the offence to the point where jury unanimity is required on each act. This maintains a balance between providing clarity to the defense and preventing prosecutorial overreach.

The decision also underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal directions sufficiently guide juries without overcomplicating the core elements of offences. Future cases involving conspiracy to defraud can rely on this judgment to structure indictments that are both thorough and compliant with legal standards.

Furthermore, the affirmation of the Hancock precedent ensures continuity and predictability in the law, allowing legal practitioners to draft indictments with confidence in their alignment with established judicial expectations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Skeene & Anor v R reaffirms the critical legal distinction between the essential elements of a conspiracy to defraud and the detailed particulars outlining the prosecution's case. By upholding the originality of the indictment and the sufficiency of the legal directions, the court emphasized the importance of clear and concise indictments that adhere to established legal standards.

This judgment serves as a significant reference point for future cases involving conspiracy to defraud, ensuring that legal practitioners structure their indictments effectively while safeguarding the defendants' rights. The steadfast adherence to precedents like Hancock and Landy reinforces the judiciary's commitment to consistency, fairness, and clarity in the prosecution of complex financial crimes.

Ultimately, Skeene & Anor v R underscores the necessity for indictments to balance detail with clarity, ensuring that conspiracy charges are both comprehensible and legally robust, thereby facilitating fair and just outcomes in criminal proceedings.