Golam-Rassoude & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction following a retrial at the Crown Court at Blackfriars on 10 June 2019. The appellants, a husband and wife originally from Mauritius but residing in the UK since 1995, were convicted of converting or transferring criminal property, which was the sole count at the retrial but had been count 2 at the first trial. They were previously acquitted on count 1, fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of Class A drugs, at the first trial, where the jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 2. Both appellants were sentenced to four-and-a-half years' imprisonment. A co-defendant was acquitted.

The criminal conduct involved the seizure of a lorry cargo containing concealed Class A drugs, namely cocaine and heroin, with substantial wholesale value. The drugs were addressed to a storage unit rented by the Appellee and later collected by the Appellants and taken to their home. Surveillance and documentary evidence showed ongoing deliveries and cash transactions consistent with money laundering. The prosecution alleged the appellants knowingly handled proceeds of criminal conduct linked to drug importation, while the defence claimed they believed they were assisting a legitimate cosmetics business and had been deceived.

Two key rulings by the trial judge form the basis of the appeal: first, permitting the prosecution to present its case suggesting the appellants knew the packages contained drugs despite their prior acquittal; second, denying the defence permission to inform the jury of the prior acquittal on the drugs charge. The appellants challenge these rulings and the adequacy of the judge's directions to the jury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the prosecution to present its case on the basis that the appellants knowingly participated in the importation of drugs despite their prior acquittal on that charge.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the appellants could not inform the jury of their acquittal on the drugs charge at the first trial.
3. Whether the judge failed to adequately and fairly direct the jury on these matters during summing-up.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The prosecution should have been limited in its case at retrial to exclude any suggestion the appellants knew about the drugs, relying on their acquittal on that charge.
• The jury should have been informed of the prior acquittal to provide context and prevent unfair prejudice.
• The judge’s directions to the jury on these issues were inadequate and unfair.
• The trial judge wrongly exercised discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by allowing evidence that caused unfairness.

Respondent's Arguments

• The trial judge’s rulings were carefully reasoned and legally correct, with no error or unfairness.
• The prior acquittal was irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence at the retrial, consistent with established legal principles.
• The verdicts are safe and the prosecution was entitled to present the case as it did, focusing on the suspicion that the money handled was criminal property.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the legal principles governing the admissibility of evidence relating to prior acquittals and the application of double jeopardy and issue estoppel in criminal proceedings. It emphasized that evidence of an earlier trial's outcome is generally irrelevant and inadmissible, but exceptions exist where the evidence relates to issues common to both trials or is otherwise relevant.

The court rejected the appellants’ contention that the prosecution should have been barred from suggesting knowledge of the drugs, noting that the acquittal on the drugs charge did not prevent the prosecution from presenting evidence relevant to the suspicion that the cash handled was criminal property. The court found no error in the trial judge’s decision not to inform the jury of the prior acquittal, as such information lacked evidential value and could have caused confusion or unfair prejudice.

Further, the court considered the adequacy of the judge’s directions to the jury and found them appropriate and fair, with no substantive complaint from counsel at trial. The court noted that the trial judge was best placed to assess the fairness of evidence admitted and that no unfairness arose.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the convictions were safe and that the trial judge’s rulings were legally sound and properly exercised judicial discretion.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the appellants’ convictions and sentences are upheld. No extension of time for filing the appeals was necessary to consider given the refusal. The decision does not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirms established principles regarding the admissibility of evidence of prior acquittals, the limits of issue estoppel in criminal trials, and the proper exercise of judicial discretion in managing evidence and jury directions in retrials.