Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Peter Gareth Clay & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1278 (KB)
R v Peter Currie
3 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 543
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of fraud. He argued some emails with his lawyer should not have been used as evidence because they were private. The court disagreed, saying the emails helped prove his guilt and the judge had instructed the jury correctly on how to consider them. The man's appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Peter Currie convicted of fraud by false representation, fraud by abuse of position, and converting criminal property.
- •Conviction related to fraudulent activities involving peer-to-peer investing company Collateral (UK) Limited (CUL).
- •Currie used a consumer credit licence from a previous company (Regal) to falsely represent that CUL had FCA authorisation.
- •Currie transferred significant funds from CUL's accounts after the FCA discovered the fraudulent activity.
- •The key legal issue concerned the admissibility of emails between Currie and his solicitor, Mr. Tool.
Legal Principles
Legal professional privilege
R (on the application of Ford) v Financial Services Authority [2011] EWHC 2583 (Admin)
Exclusion of evidence under s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The judge correctly applied the test in Ford, finding insufficient evidence to establish joint legal professional privilege over the emails. The probative value of the emails outweighed any potential prejudice, especially when considering the judge's direction to the jury.
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Given the lack of merit in the grounds of appeal, the court refused to extend the time.