R v Pace and Rogers [2014] EWCA Crim 186

Facts

  • The defendants, Pace and Rogers, operated a scrap metal yard.
  • They were charged under section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with converting criminal property after purchasing scrap metal they believed was stolen.
  • The trial judge instructed the jury that suspicion or doubt about the metal's origin was sufficient for conviction, even if the defendants did not specifically intend to deal with stolen property.
  • The defendants were convicted and subsequently appealed on the basis of misdirection to the jury.

Issues

  1. Whether section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires defendants to intend all parts of the offence, specifically intent regarding the criminal status of the property.
  2. Whether suspicion or doubt about the origins of property is sufficient to satisfy the mental element for offences requiring specific intent.
  3. Whether the trial judge's direction to the jury improperly lowered the threshold for conviction by conflating suspicion with intent.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions.
  • It held that section 329(1) requires the prosecution to prove the defendant intended to handle property known to be criminal in nature; doubt or suspicion is not sufficient.
  • The court determined the trial judge's direction to the jury was incorrect, as it allowed for conviction without proof of intent regarding the property's stolen status.
  • The judgment clarified that "knowingly" in the statute pertains to a specific intent relating to all elements of the offence.

Legal Principles

  • Offences requiring specific intent demand that the defendant intends all statutory elements of the offence, not merely suspects or doubts them.
  • For section 329(1) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the mental element (mens rea) encompasses both knowledge and intent concerning the criminal provenance of property.
  • Conviction for such offences cannot be based solely on suspicion, belief, or a failure to investigate; affirmative intent regarding all elements is necessary.
  • Courts must interpret criminal statutes strictly, ensuring the prosecution establishes intent for every component of the offence.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Pace and Rogers [2014] EWCA Crim 186 clarified that, for offences requiring specific intent under section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, a defendant must intend all parts of the crime, and mere suspicion or doubt about the fundamental facts is insufficient for conviction. This decision supports strict statutory interpretation and reinforces essential protections within the criminal justice system concerning proof of mens rea.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal