R v AWQ
[2024] EWCA Crim 898
R v Jing Du
1 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 713
Court of Appeal
Jing Du was wrongly convicted of a crime because the judge didn't explain the charges clearly enough to the jury. New evidence showed she was threatened, which explained why she didn't appeal sooner. The court threw out the case and won't retry it.
Key Facts
- •Jing Du, a Chinese national, was convicted of acquiring criminal property (£725,954.59) contrary to section 329(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- •She was acquitted on a second count of possessing criminal property.
- •Jing Du's defence was that she was a victim of modern slavery, coerced into sex work after being drugged and threatened.
- •Her appeal was based on two grounds: fresh evidence (text messages) and errors in the judge's directions to the jury.
- •The prosecution's case relied on unexplained large sums of money in her accounts and links to adult escort service advertising.
- •The judge's directions to the jury failed to separate the elements of 'acquisition' and 'knowledge/suspicion of criminal property'.
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal may receive fresh evidence if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice (Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23).
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23
An extension of time for appealing will be granted only where there is good reason and the defendant will otherwise suffer significant injustice (R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841).
R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841
The court will examine the merits of the underlying grounds before deciding whether to grant an extension of time (R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1).
R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1
Legal representatives have professional obligations to comply with requests for information under the McCook process (R v McCook [2014] EWCA Crim 734).
R v McCook [2014] EWCA Crim 734
Outcomes
Leave to appeal granted.
Deficient jury directions on the elements of the offence rendered the conviction unsafe.
Appeal allowed.
The conviction was quashed due to the technical deficiency in the judge's directions to the jury, which failed to properly separate the elements of the offence.
Application to adduce fresh evidence granted.
The fresh evidence (text messages) corroborated Jing Du's defence and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in appealing.
Extension of time granted.
The delay was explained by Jing Du's circumstances and the time taken to obtain necessary evidence and legal representation.
No retrial ordered.
The Crown Prosecution Service decided a retrial was not in the public interest.