R (Wilkinson) v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY,MR JUSTICE MITTING |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/559/2006 |
| Date | 22 June 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Mr Justice Mitting
CO/559/2006
MR A BLAKE (instructed by Messrs Darby's, Oxford) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR M STANGER (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, permission having been refused on the papers by Beatson J.
The circumstances are unusual, although it is right to say that they are circumstances which were foreseen at the time of the enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The claimant, now aged 20, was aged 19 at the time which gave rise to his prosecution. What happened was that a mini motor cycle was stolen in a burglary on 4th March 2005. Two days later the claimant was arrested when he was riding the stolen mini motor cycle. In due course he was charged, not with burglary or handling stolen goods but with an offence under section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He was so charged on 14th June 2005. That offence is defined in these terms:
"(1) A person commits an offence if he
has possession of criminal property."
Criminal property is defined in section 340(3) in this way:
"Property is criminal property if -
(a) it constitutes a person's benefit from criminal conduct or it represents such a benefit (in whole or in part and whether directly or indirectly), and
(b) the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit."
It is then provided in section 340(4) that it is immaterial who carried out the conduct and who benefited from it.
No doubt when that offence was created in the 2002 Act it was in the context of legislation directed primarily at money laundering and matters of serious criminality. It is an offence which in one sense is easier to prove than that of handling stolen goods because the mens rea is one of "knowing or suspecting" that the property constituted or represents a benefit from criminal conduct rather than "knowing or believing" which applies in section 22 of the Theft Act 1968.
On 30th June 2005 the claimant's solicitors wrote to the CPS inviting the CPS not to proceed with the charge under section 329(1)(c) but instead to charge an offence of handling stolen goods. The letter stated that the claimant would have a defence to a charge of handling stolen goods because, as he had told the police, his state of mind in relation to the stolen motor cycle at the time when it was in his possession did not rise above suspicion. At the same time the solicitor indicated that he, the claimant, would have no defence to the charge under section 329. However, Mr Blake now resiles from that latter concession. The senior prosecutor replied by letter dated 25th July 2005 explaining the decision. Broadly speaking, it was to the effect that there was at least a suspicion that the claimant was one of the burglars rather than simply a handler and also it was considered that the charge was appropriate in view of what the claimant himself had said in interview. The letter stated:
"When considering charges, my guide is the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It is not the CPS website. I am satisfied that I have complied with the Code.
It is ackowledged that there is an overlap on offences (Blackstones 2005, paragraph B22.15).
I am prepared, if you so wish, to accept a plea to handling but I am not prepared to substitute it at this stage for the offence contrary to section 329 which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Newham v Osmar
...evidence can be justified on that basis or at all today. 23 I have therefore obtained more guidance from the more recent decision in Wilkinson. In that case, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton stated that where the audio tape of an interview under caution which gave the defendant's account of an in......
-
Crown Prosecution Service (Nottinghamshire) v Rose
...about the use of s.329 in circumstances such as these was in fact ventilated in R (Wilkinson) v Director of Public Prosecutions) [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin), in which it was sought to challenge the decision to prosecute in a case arising out of very similar facts. A mini motorcycle had been s......
-
R v GH
...POCA instead of charging the specific statutory offence under the Theft Act (see R (Wilkinson) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin) and R v Rose [2008] EWCA Crim 239, [2008] 1 WLR 2113, para 20). It is unlikely that the prosecution would fail to respect the view of ......
-
Sylvia Allpress and Others v R
...that this may be happening. Concerns about this were expressed by Maurice Kay LJ in R(Wilkinson) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin), para 8, and by Richards LJ in CPS Nottinghamshire v Kevin Rose [2008] EWCA Crim 239, paras 19–20. It would be unsatisfactory if as a r......
-
Self-laundering of the proceeds of tax evasion in comparative law
...under POCAinstead of charging the specific statutory offence under the Theft Act (see R (Wilkinson) vDirector of Publi c Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 3012 (A dmin) and R v Rose [2008] EWCA Crim239, [2008] 1 WLR 2113, para 20). It is unlikely that the prosecution would fail to respect theview of......
-
Fraud and money laundering: the evolving criminalization of corporate non‐compliance
...who believes that these provisions are reserved for only the most seriousoffences is in for a shock. In Wilkinson v. DPP [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin), the court heldFraudand that the decision on what charges to prefer is for the prosecution and not the court. In thatcase the appellant attempted......
-
The inter-relationship between theft and POCA: is every thief also guilty of a money-laundering offence?
...by substantive offences. Any handler of stolen goods is also guilty of an offence con-trary to s. 329, but in R (Wilkinson) vDPP [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin) and RvRose [2008] EWCACrim 239 the Court of Appeal discouraged the use of the Act in this situation. His Lordship stated that thecourts ‘......