Crown
J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE THOMAS: The appellant is married to Asad Chohan. In December 2000 he bought No 267 Wake Green Road, Birmingham, for approximately £190,000. The family moved to live there with the two children and mortgage repayments were made during the course of 2001. 2. Asad Chohan was convicted in April 2001 of conspiracy to avoid excise duty over a large quantity of tobacco. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. In July 2001 he was charged with various trading standards offences and further charges followed. In April 2006 he was convicted of tobacco smuggling between June 2000 and December 2000. That conviction occurred in his absence as he had fled to Pakistan. 3. On 6th December 2001 he transferred the matrimonial home at 267 Wake Green Road for £158,000 to Nadim, the appellant’s brother, on behalf of the appellant. Nadim was a barrister who practised in Manchester and lived in Rochdale. The transfer had been made to him because no lender would lend to the appellant. Eventually the Derbyshire Building Society provided a loan. 4. The appellant and Nadim had been charged with money laundering in respect of 267 Wake Green Road, in that it was said that the sale to Nadim was an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by Asad Chohan of the property and that property represented the proceeds of Asad Chohan's criminal conduct, which both were said to know. They had done this contrary to section 93A of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. 5. There was a long trial, lasting some 30 days, at Birmingham Crown Court before His Honour Judge Griffith-Jones and the jury during October and November 2006. The retirement of the jury was about five days. Nadim was acquitted but the appellant was convicted by a majority of ten to two. She received a sentence of 80 hours' community service. She sought leave to appeal on three grounds. She was granted leave on one, namely the conviction was unsafe as the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. This is not a case where there were inconsistencies between verdicts on different counts but it is said that, if the jury had acquitted Nadim, they should also have acquitted the appellant. 6. To succeed in setting aside the verdict of the jury on the grounds of inconsistency, it is necessary to establish, first, that the verdicts are in fact inconsistent, and secondly, if they are inconsistent, that a legitimate train of reasoning cannot be postulated that can sensibly account for the inconsistency or that the verdicts cannot be regarded as safe. 7. The leading authority often cited is