Kansal, Yash

Yash Kansal was convicted in February 1992 of obtaining property by deception, bankrupt removing property, and bankrupt failing to account for property. Mr Kansal received a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

The CCRC inherited an application for review of the conviction from the Home Office in March 1997.

Following investigation, the CCRC considered that on the first two counts – obtaining property by deception – the circumstances of the conviction were indistinguishable in any material way from the facts in the House of Lords judgment in the case of R v Preddy (1996).

Mr Preddy had been convicted of mortgage fraud under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 which created the offence of obtaining “property of another” by deception.

The type of property fraud practiced by Mr Preddy and others had the effect of inducing the victim (usually a bank or building society) to issue a cheque in favour of the defendant.

In 1996 the House of Lords concluded that although there had been deception, it could not identify any “property of another” obtained by the fraud.

The Lords ruled that Mr Preddy’s conduct in dishonesty was not apt to be prosecuted under that particular section of the Theft Act.

The decision allowed those convicted on similar facts to seek to re-open their convictions.

The CCRC concluded that there was a real possibility Mr Kansal’s convictions on the first two counts would not be upheld and the court would substitute alternative convictions.

On counts 4 and 5 – bankrupt removing property and bankrupt failing to account for property – the CCRC concluded there was a real possibility the court would find that there had been a misjoinder, or that counts 4 and 5 should have been severed, and that therefore the court might find that those convictions were also unsafe.

In addition, the CCRC considered that the admission at trial of the transcript of Mr Kansal’s public examination had been prejudicial because he provided answers which were directly incriminating.

In 1998, the Attorney General issued guidelines to prosecutors about the use of answers obtained under compulsory powers in criminal proceedings. The guidelines indicated that these should not normally be used save in a few, specified examples.

The CCRC decided that there was a real possibility that the court would therefore find that Mr Kansal’s testimony, which was obtained under compulsion, should not have been admitted, and it referred the conviction in June 2000.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in April 2001. The Crown then appealed to the House of Lords which restored the convictions for the Insolvency Act offences.