Practice and Procedure

R v NASAR ANWAR (2013)

PUBLISHED April 24, 2013

[2013] EWCA Crim 1865

Where the prosecution case was that the cash belonging to the defendant could, in the circumstances, only have been the proceeds of unspecified crime, the judge should have responded to a jury question about tax evasion by instructing the jury that tax evasion had never been part of the prosecution, had never been subject to any evidence and the jury should simply not speculate on that matter any further.

CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Andrew Smith J, Jeremy Baker J)