May & Ors, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 97 (28 January 2005)

May & Ors, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 97 (28 January 2005)

Where conspirators jointly control property obtained through fraud, each may be treated as having obtained the whole benefit for confiscation purposes. However, where a legitimate expectation is reasonably created by a judge's pre-plea indication that only identifiable assets will be considered, fairness requires limiting confiscation orders to those assets. Judicial compartmentalisation is permissible where the judge expressly states undisclosed material is disregarded.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 97
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: Raymond George May; Appellant/defendant: Steven Lawrence; Appellant/defendant: Herbert Fowles; Appellant/defendant: Jacques Bravard; Appellant/defendant: Vincent John Stapleton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Confiscation Orders and Sentences
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; confiscation orders against Stapleton and Bravard reduced to identifiable assets; adjustment to Bravard's realisable assets for Corsican property; other appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Conspiracy to Cheat, VAT Fraud, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Legitimate Expectation, Sentencing, Piercing the Corporate Veil
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Conspiracy to Cheat VAT Fraud Public Interest Immunity Disclosure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Raymond George May

Appellant/defendant

Steven Lawrence

Appellant/defendant

Herbert Fowles

Appellant/defendant

Jacques Bravard

Appellant/defendant

Vincent John Stapleton

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Confiscation Orders and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the approach to confiscation orders, including assessment of benefit and realisable assets
  2. 2 Whether public interest immunity and non-disclosure of material affected fairness of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether statements by the judge before guilty pleas created a legitimate expectation limiting confiscation to identifiable assets

Ratio Decidendi

Where conspirators jointly control property obtained through fraud, each may be treated as having obtained the whole benefit for confiscation purposes. However, where a legitimate expectation is reasonably created by a judge's pre-plea indication that only identifiable assets will be considered, fairness requires limiting confiscation orders to those assets. Judicial compartmentalisation is permissible where the judge expressly states undisclosed material is disregarded.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; confiscation orders against Stapleton and Bravard reduced to identifiable assets; adjustment to Bravard's realisable assets for Corsican property; other appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Confiscation orders against Stapleton and Bravard reduced to the total of their identifiable assets.
  • Bravard's realisable assets reduced by £10,000 to reflect his wife's half share in Corsican property.