- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Skeene & Anor, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants were convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Southwark on 31 May 2022 and sentenced on 15 June 2022 by HHJ Pegden KC. They were found guilty on four counts: three counts of conspiracy to defraud relating to three investment schemes involving Brazilian teak plantations (Belem Sky, Para Sky, and Para Grosso), and one count of misconduct in the course of winding up. The total sentence imposed on each Appellant was 11 years' imprisonment.
The prosecution case was that the Appellants, working closely together, devised and controlled fraudulent investment schemes from 2010 to 2015, misleading investors about the nature and profitability of these schemes. They concealed their control through nominees and straw directors, deployed false documents, and prolonged the frauds to obtain further investments. Additionally, they deliberately misled a liquidator regarding a false debt to benefit associates during the winding up of their company, GFI Consultants Ltd.
The Appellants made no comment during interviews and did not testify, denying any criminal conspiracy and attributing failures to financial difficulties. The trial involved detailed summing up and legal directions by the Judge, with the Appellants seeking permission to appeal both convictions and sentences, including applications to vary grounds.
The appeals were initially refused by a Single Judge but were renewed and heard in February and November 2024, with the Court reserving judgment and addressing the substantive issues raised.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the indictment was defective by failing adequately to define the conspiracy charged in Counts 1-3, specifically whether the particulars provided were essential elements or merely particulars of the means by which the conspiracy was carried out.
- Whether the Judge failed to properly sum up the defence case to the jury.
- Whether the Judge erred by failing to give a proper direction on the issue of dishonesty, including the application of the test for dishonesty.
- Whether the evidence of a prosecution witness with forestry expertise was improperly admitted as expert opinion rather than factual evidence.
- Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the alleged value of teak trees on the land involved in the schemes.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The indictment was defective because it failed to specify the essential elements of the conspiracy, instead listing a "menu" of acts, some of which should have been treated as essential parts of the agreement to defraud.
- The Judge did not provide the jury with a coherent summary of the defence case, merely reminding them of denial without summarising key factual issues the jury needed to consider.
- The jury were not given a proper direction on dishonesty, lacking guidance on how to assess dishonesty in relation to the agreement itself versus incidental misconduct.
- The evidence of the forestry witness improperly included expert opinion without proper independence or impartiality, thus should have been excluded or limited.
- The sentences failed to take into account the mitigating factor of the value of teak trees on the land, which could reduce the loss and thus the appropriate sentence length.
Prosecution's Arguments
- The indictment was properly framed in accordance with established legal principles distinguishing essential elements of the offence from particulars of the means by which the conspiracy was carried out.
- The Judge fairly and fully summed up the defence case, including detailed references to relevant evidence and the Appellants' denials.
- The directions on dishonesty were appropriate and consistent with current law, and no full Ivey/Barton direction was required given the facts and the defence case.
- The forestry witness's evidence was properly limited to factual observations and did not stray into inadmissible expert opinion.
- The sentences were appropriate given the scale and seriousness of the fraud, and there was no reliable evidence that the alleged value of the trees would benefit investors or mitigate loss.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1975] AC 819 | Definition and essential elements of conspiracy to defraud, including the requirement of dishonesty. | The Court relied on Viscount Dilhorne’s formulation to confirm that dishonesty is implicit in the meaning of "to defraud" and that the essential elements are an agreement to dishonestly prejudice another’s rights. |
| R v Goldshield Group plc and others [2008] UKHL 17 | Definition of conspiracy to defraud involving dishonest agreement to bring about a deceptive state of affairs causing economic loss. | Used to support the understanding of conspiracy to defraud focusing on the agreement’s content and dishonest intent. |
| R v Landy [1981] 1 WLR 355 | Requirement for clarity and particularity in indictments for conspiracy to defraud to prevent shifting prosecution grounds. | The Court applied Landy to require that indictments provide sufficient particulars to inform defendants and the court of the prosecution’s case, distinguishing essential elements from particulars. |
| Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1982) [1983] QB 751 | Focus on the true object of the conspiracy and the need to identify the agreement’s object rather than incidental consequences. | The Court cited Lord Lane LCJ’s statement to emphasize that the conspiracy’s object must be clearly identified, supporting the sufficiency of the indictment’s form. |
| R v Hancock [1996] 2 Cr App R 554 | Unanimity requirement for essential elements of conspiracy to defraud and distinction between essential elements and particulars. | The Court confirmed that particulars serve to specify the prosecution’s case but are not essential ingredients requiring jury unanimity. |
| R v K [2004] EWCA Crim 2685 | Clarification of the essential elements of conspiracy to defraud and the role of particulars in indictments. | The Court endorsed the approach in Landy and Hancock, rejecting the need for jury unanimity on particulars and confirming the indictment’s sufficiency. |
| R v SA and others [2019] EWCA Crim 144 | Summary of principles on conspiracy to defraud including the need for indictment particularity and defining the conspiracy. | The Court applied these principles to confirm that indictments must define the conspiracy and prevent shifting grounds, consistent with the present case. |
| R v Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575 | Form of indictment and clarity for defendants to identify the case they face. | Used for comparative purposes to illustrate a cleaner indictment form, but not to find deficiency in the present indictment. |
| R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115 | Requirement for jury unanimity on essential elements in statutory offences involving false statements. | Distinguished from conspiracy to defraud offences, supporting the Court’s view that particulars are not essential elements. |
| Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) [2017] UKSC 67 | Modern test for dishonesty in criminal law. | The Court held that no full direction on dishonesty was required in this conspiracy to defraud case given the facts and defence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully analysed the form and content of the indictment, applying established principles distinguishing the essential elements of conspiracy to defraud from particulars that set out the nature of the prosecution case and the means by which the conspiracy was allegedly carried out. The indictment followed the model upheld in R v Landy and R v Hancock, providing sufficient clarity and preventing the prosecution from shifting grounds during trial.
The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that particulars listed after "by dishonestly" should be treated as essential elements requiring jury unanimity. Instead, these particulars were properly viewed as particulars of means, not ingredients of the offence. The Judge's legal directions and Routes to Verdict appropriately distinguished between the essential agreement to defraud and the means of effecting that conspiracy, providing adequate guidance to the jury.
Regarding the defence case summing up, the Court found that the Judge fairly and fully presented the defence position, including evidence and denials, and that no significant omissions undermined the fairness of the trial.
On the issue of dishonesty directions, the Court noted that the law does not require routine full directions on the modern test for dishonesty in conspiracy to defraud cases and found no error in the Judge's approach, especially given the absence of evidence on the Appellants' state of mind and the nature of the defence case.
The Court also upheld the trial Judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence from the forestry witness, distinguishing factual observations from impermissible expert opinion, and found no arguable error in the approach taken.
Finally, the Court addressed the sentencing challenge, concluding that there was no reliable evidence that the value of the teak trees would mitigate the loss or justify a reduction in sentence. The sentences imposed were within the proper range given the seriousness, scale, and aggravating features of the frauds.
Holding and Implications
The Court granted permission to appeal on the issue of the indictment’s form but ultimately DISMISSED the appeal on that ground. Permission to appeal was refused on all other grounds including summing up, dishonesty direction, evidential rulings, and sentence.
The direct effect of the decision is that the convictions and sentences stand as imposed by the Crown Court. The Court endorsed the established legal principles relating to the form and content of indictments for conspiracy to defraud, the nature of particulars versus essential elements, and the approach to jury directions in such cases. No new precedent was established, but the judgment reaffirms the current legal framework and clarifies its application in complex fraud cases involving multiple schemes and detailed particulars.
Alert