MR SELLS: The last of these matters is the case of Ahmed. My learned friend Mr House represents this appellant. The respondents have considered the evidence in this case and have come to a like conclusion that I indicated in the previous case, and, again indicated in our note, that we would not contest the appeal against conviction in this case. But, however, we would seek a retrial in his case for the same reasons that I have indicated earlier.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR JUSTICE BURTON: Mr Ahmed makes something of his age. Is he older than any of the other defendants?

MR SELLS: No, I am not aware of that.

MR HOUSE: He is 53.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Actually I thought you said 56.

MR HOUSE: That is an error.

MR JUSTICE BURTON: So he is of a similar age to people who have faced other retrials.

MR SELLS: I don't know if the court has seen a skeleton placed before the court by my learned friend?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was from that skeleton that I obtained his aged as being 56.

MR SELLS: I saw it this morning for the first time. Could I say on that question that the respondents have considered, prior to proceeding with this, all the circumstances in his case. If the court is of the view that there was anything in the documents which my learned friend has placed before the court today which might militate against a retrial in this case, then we would wish for a short time to consider that new material, which, of course, we have not yet had the opportunity of considering. But in our submission, on a first reading of this document, it does not in fact raise any matters of substance which have not been considered by the respondents and, indeed, I should indicate that this sort of material was considered by Hughes LJ in Ramzan and others , paragraph 1.80 in the judgment there. This is a serious case, serious sentences of imprisonment were imposed in this case. A confiscation order was imposed in this case. That's another material consideration in our submission, because, if there were to be no retrial, then, inevitably, that follow-on order would be bound to fall. There is, in our submission, in Mr Ahmed's case a real public interest in having this matter determined properly before a court. The evidence is quite straightforward and quite clear, in our submission, in his case, and, therefore, there are no reasons set out which militate against a retrial that we would see in this document and there is every good reason why the matter should be retried speedily and quickly.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR SELLS: That is the application we make.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Yes, Mr House.

MR HOUSE: My Lord, the court has the document that I have set out -- I have tried to set out the argument as fully and comprehensively as I can. There is really very little to add to what appears in that document. I would be happy to address your Lordships on any particular matter in relation to which you wish for further information.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is there any special reason that you can identify why your client should be treated any differently from the others in respect of whom retrials have been ordered?

MR HOUSE: I don't know the facts of other cases. I can only set out --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am not suggesting that you might have, but it is just if there was and you knew about it.

MR HOUSE: No, there is not. The main factors are that the matter is now six and a half years' old, which is far older than the circumstances in which retrials are normally ordered.

MR JUSTICE BURTON: The last case was the same figure.

MR HOUSE: Indeed, I wasn't aware of that. I think the amount involved in this case was substantially smaller than in any of the others case your Lordships are considering. He has served his sentence in full. As a result of the order your Lordships will be making he will be a man of good character. He has had this hanging over his head and his family's head for the last six years. If there is a retrial and he is convicted he will have served his sentence. He will be on record as someone who has a conviction for money laundering. The only consequence is that the Crown will not have to repay the confiscation order. And on a practical point a retrial -- the original trial lasted some five weeks -- on a retrial the costs will be far greater to the Exchequer than the money that will have to be repaid. So in my submission on practical grounds, as well as in terms of the age of the case, the gravity of the case, it is certainly a lot less serious than many cases where millions of pounds are involved.

Your Lordship will have seen the references to the two cases that are cited in Archbold, Saunders and Grafton .

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have. Thank you.

MR HOUSE: Both of those cases were far more serious than the present case and in both of those cases the interval was far shorter and certainly in Saunders the court made it clear that three and a half years was a very long time between the offence and a retrial, although Grafton said that things have changed since then and longer intervals were common.

But the fundamental point is that the conduct which the Crown alleges against Mr Ahmed finished in October 2000. I don't know when a retrial would be heard, if it were ordered, but the interval would be between six and a half and seven years. In my submission, there should be finality in matters. When one is dealing with a man in his 50s, of good character, a married man with children, who is working and who has tried to -- who has served his sentence and put this behind him, he should not be subjected to yet another trial. My Lord, that is the way I put it.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Very grateful, Mr House. ( Pause ). Anything you wish to add, Mr Sells?

MR SELLS: I think only two very short matters. According to the Court of Appeal summary, which I have in this case, the overall amount of money laundered was -- by this appellant and others was approximately £12 million.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That was in fact contained in the grounds of appeal against conviction.

MR SELLS: Absolutely right.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So it's understood by the appellant that that was the position.

MR SELLS: It is the fact that in this case, as in others, the law, as the Criminal Cases Review Commission itself accepts, the judge directed the jury quite properly as he thought at that time.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think that helps you, Mr Sells. At the end of day we have to take a view, whether, in the light -- whether we think it is appropriate for this man who has served his sentence to be retried in the circumstances of this type of case. Thank you.

MR HOUSE: My Lord, in relation to the amount, £12 million was the amount that passed through the exchange. £1.385 million was the amount that the learned judge sentenced the appellant for converting.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Fully understand that.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: On 12th February 2003, at the Wood Green Crown Court, this appellant was convicted of conspiracy to launder money, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. He was sentenced ultimately to four and a half years' imprisonment and a compensation order was ultimately made in the sum of £28,000 or thereabouts.

The matter comes before this court by reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission, based upon the House of Lords' decision in Saik , on the basis that the direction to the jury, which accorded with the then state of the law, did not accord with what the House of Lords considered in Saik to be the proper approach to the offence of conspiracy in these circumstances. The respondents are prepared to accept the consequence that this conviction may be unsafe. We agree. They are content that the appeal be allowed, but they request a retrial.

Mr House, on behalf of the appellant, has said all he can say to persuade us that a retrial is inappropriate. His client is 53 years of age. The matters about which complaint is made took place as long ago as October 2000. He has served his sentence. He has paid the compensation. He submits that, in all those circumstances, there is no need in the public interest for there to be a retrial.

We have considered that submission in the light of two particular considerations. One is that the criminal activity, in which it is said that the appellant was engaged, was of an extremely serious order. The scope of the conspiracy involved the alleged laundering of somewhere in the region of £12 million. We accept that the judge at trial found that the appellant's direct involvement was in relation to the sum of £1.38 million, or thereabouts. But simply stating those facts makes it plain that this was a conspiracy, if proved, of a very serious nature indeed, in an area where the public interest cries out for the trial and conviction of those involved.

The second matter is that as a result of the decision in the House of Lords a number of other convictions have been quashed and retrials ordered. There is no special reason that we can see which could justify our treating this appellant in any different way from those in the other trials.

For those reasons we consider that a retrial is appropriate. We allow the appeal, quash the conviction, order that there be a retrial on the counts which he faced at trial. We direct that a fresh indictment be preferred and the appellant be re-arraigned on that indictment within two months of today. The appellant will be granted unconditional bail for the purposes of awaiting that trial.

Mr House, what representation orders do you want?

MR HOUSE: My Lord, Mr Ahmed was represented at trial by two junior counsel. I would ask for legal aid for two junior counsel and solicitors.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am never very happy about two junior counsel.

MR HOUSE: The original trial lasted some five weeks my Lord.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. ( Pause ). For the moment, Mr House, we are concerned as to whether or not it would need two junior counsel. We grant a representation order for single counsel and solicitor, but you are entitled to make an application if it is considered that that is an inappropriate level of representation.

MR HOUSE: Thank you, my Lord. May I make one further application, which is for a defence costs order in relation to the appeal? The appellant has been legally aided since the CCRC referral, but he has had to finance that referral himself.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Sells, you would have nothing to say about that?

MR SELLS: No.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Then we make a defendant's costs order in relation to that aspect of the costs.

MR HOUSE: Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much indeed.