R v John Allcock & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1010
R v Simon Davies & Ors
18 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 969
Court of Appeal
Three men were convicted of money laundering. They appealed, arguing the trial was unfair because of a prosecutor's tweet and jurors using WhatsApp. The appeal court disagreed, saying the trial was fair, and the sentences were justified. The appeals were dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Simon Davies, Marcus Justin Hughes, and Damion Darren Morgan were convicted of conspiracy to launder criminal property.
- •Hughes and Woolley were also convicted of a separate, earlier conspiracy.
- •The prosecution's case relied on encrypted communications and circumstantial evidence.
- •Over £300,000 in cash was found in vehicles driven by Fern and Morgan.
- •Prosecution counsel tweeted during the trial, raising concerns about potential jury prejudice.
- •Jurors were communicating via a WhatsApp group.
- •Hughes received a 14-year sentence, Davies 8 years, and Morgan 5 years and 6 months.
- •Hughes had previous convictions for drug trafficking and tax evasion.
Legal Principles
Juror impartiality and the impact of external information on a trial.
Criminal Practice Directions 2023, Part 8.7
Sentencing guidelines for money laundering offences under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Sentencing Council's definitive guideline for offences contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Principles of totality in sentencing.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Renewed applications for leave to appeal.
Section 31 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Standard for assessing disclosure deficiencies in appeals against conviction.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Outcomes
Davies' application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The court found no evidence of jury prejudice from the prosecutor's tweet or the juror's WhatsApp communication.
Hughes', Morgan's and Davies' applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.
The court upheld the sentences, finding them to be appropriate given the defendants' roles and the seriousness of the offences. Disparity arguments were rejected.