Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Is a conviction in a foreign court acceptable in subsequent English proceedings as proof of the facts on which the conviction was based? Joel Donovan QC, barrister at Cloisters, who appeared for the claimant, considers Daley v Bakiyev.
The Queen’s Bench Division found that the claimant, a British businessman who had been shot while working in the Kyrgyz Republic, had failed to establish that the defendant, the son of the then president of the Kyrgyz Republic, had organised the
shooting. Accordingly, the court dismissed his claim for damages in respect of his injuries.
The claimant was a British businessman based in the Kyrgyz Republic (one of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). He was lobbying on behalf of a British listed company, Oxus Gold plc, for the restoration of a mining licence for the Jerooy gold
deposit, Oxus’s licence having been annulled in 2004 by President Akayev’s government.
In 2005, Akayev was overthrown and replaced by Kurmanbek Bakiyev. The defendant was Kurmanbek’s son, Maksim, who had become a prominent business figure.
In 2006, the claimant was shot outside his home in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. He alleged that the shooting was an attempted murder arranged by the defendant to stop him from jeopardising a fraudulent scheme to give the Jerooy licence to a shell company,
Global Gold Holding GmbH. The claimant’s case was that the beneficial owners of Global Gold were Bakiyev associates—the dead oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Badri Patarkatsishvili—and that the Jerooy licence was repayment for their
assistance in raising Kurmanbek to power.
The Bakiyev regime was overthrown in 2010, and the defendant fled to the UK. In 2014, he and his father were convicted in absentia in the Kyrgyz Republic of the claimant’s attempted murder, along with the defendant’s brother Marat.
There was no dispute that the standard of proof was the ordinary civil standard, but that the character of the allegations meant that strong evidence was required to discharge it. As Lord Nicholls said in a well-known passage in H (minors) (sexual abuse: standard of proof), Re  1 All ER 1, the more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.
One of the key issues was the extent of the defendant and his father’s involvement in Global Gold and the licensing process. The court did not accept their evidence. It found that the defendant had greater involvement than he admitted to—similarly,
the court had had little doubt that President Bakiyev was involved in the grant of the licence. A key part of the claimant’s case was therefore upheld.
Less helpful for the claimant, and prominent in the judgment, was the part played by his witness Bertii Sin Beti. Mr Sin Beti was an Israeli businessman who claimed in the Kyrgyz criminal proceedings to have been party to a confession by the defendant
to having organised the shooting. This was the only direct evidence against the defendant. However, Mr Sin Beti refused to attend the trial, despite a witness summons. Although his evidence was admitted on a hearsay basis, the court did not accept
it. Nor did the court accept on the evidence as a whole that the defendant was willing to use lethal force for financial gain.
This was a highly unusual case, and I think it would be unwise to draw from it any wide-ranging implications. That said, it demonstrates that the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn is alive and kicking—subject to important exceptions, the findings
of a court, tribunal or inquiry cannot be relied on as evidence in subsequent court proceedings. I am sure this is a point that will not be lost, for example, on potential litigants who had been wishing to rely on the Chilcot report in claims against
Tony Blair and others.
The judgment is a yet further reminder that the more distant in time from trial a disputed conversation took place, the more useful any record of that conversation made before a claim was in prospect.
Joel Donovan QC appeared with Nathan Roberts for the claimant in this case.
Interviewed by Robert Matthews. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234