Gurdip Singh Sohal [2019] EWCA Crim 1237

The appellant was convicted of 2 offences of conspiracy to defraud and 3 offences of converting criminal property. The convictions for converting criminal property were quashed as neither the prosecution opening, nor the judge’s summing-up identified what part the appellant was alleged to have played in the transferring or converting of criminal property.

The conspiracies involved the sale of cars in which the mileage had been reduced, “clocking” and the appellant was alleged to have been present with his son. He said his command of English was limited and that he had not been involved. By error two witnesses had not been called to give evidence and their statements were admitted as hearsay. They referred to the presence of an older gentleman who spoke with them. The Court concluded that the judge was right that the criteria for admission of the hearsay evidence were met but that the evidence clearly ought to have been excluded on the grounds of fairness. The Court was not satisfied, however, that the admission of the statements rendered the convictions unsafe. The appeal was dismissed.