R v Burke

 In the case of R v Burke [2006] EWCA Crim 3122, the Court of Appeal considered the safety of allowing a conviction for money laundering against one defendant to stand, when another defendant was acquitted for the substantive offence which had been said to generate the proceeds of crime to be laundered.

In February 2001, Mr Burke was convicted of laundering the proceeds of tobacco smuggling by one Mr Cook. Mr Burke provided solicitors with funds for the purchase of a number of properties. It was alleged that these funds were received from Mr Cook and that they were the proceeds of tobacco smuggling. At the time of the trial Mr Cook was out of the jurisdiction and accordingly did not give evidence at Mr Burke’s trial.

Mr Cook was later extradited and faced trial in July 2005. While there was irrefutable evidence of a tobacco smuggling operation and a number of other members of the group were convicted, the jury in Mr Cook’s trial were not satisfied that he was actually involved in the tobacco smuggling, so he was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal held at paragraph 26 of the judgment that the suggested inconsistency between the verdicts at the two trials was not of itself any reason to hold the appellant’s conviction unsafe: a further reason must be identified as to why that may be so. This further reason could only be the fresh evidence of Mr Cook.

Unfortunately for Mr Burke, his representatives had failed to apply for the Court to hear the fresh evidence and had not actually produced either a transcript of Mr Cook’s evidence or Mr Cook himself to provide fresh evidence. As such the Court refused the appeal on the grounds that they did not have an opportunity to give proper consideration to the proposed new evidence.