May & Ors, R. v

May & Ors, R. v

Where conspirators jointly control property obtained through crime, each may be treated as having obtained the whole benefit for confiscation purposes. However, if a judge's statements reasonably induce a plea of guilty on the understanding that only identifiable assets will be subject to confiscation, fairness requires the court to limit the order accordingly. The judge is bound by an agreed basis of plea in determining benefit. The judge's assurance that undisclosed PII material was disregarded is sufficient absent evidence to the contrary.

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 Judgment on Appeals Against Confiscation Orders and Sentences
Outcome
Appeals against confiscation orders allowed in part; appeals against sentence allowed in part for May, dismissed for Lawrence.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Conspiracy to Cheat, VAT Fraud, Public Interest Immunity (pii), Disclosure, Legitimate Expectation, Sentencing, Benefit Assessment, Realisable Assets
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Conspiracy to Cheat VAT Fraud Public Interest Immunity (pii) Disclosure +4 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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
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 Judgment on Appeals Against Confiscation Orders and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of benefit and realisable assets for confiscation orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the judge's statements created a legitimate expectation limiting confiscation to identifiable assets
  3. 3 Whether the judge was bound by the agreed basis of plea in determining benefit for Fowles

Ratio Decidendi

Where conspirators jointly control property obtained through crime, each may be treated as having obtained the whole benefit for confiscation purposes. However, if a judge's statements reasonably induce a plea of guilty on the understanding that only identifiable assets will be subject to confiscation, fairness requires the court to limit the order accordingly. The judge is bound by an agreed basis of plea in determining benefit. The judge's assurance that undisclosed PII material was disregarded is sufficient absent evidence to the contrary.

Court Disposition

Appeals against confiscation orders allowed in part; appeals against sentence allowed in part for May, dismissed for Lawrence.

Orders

  • May: Appeal against confiscation order dismissed; sentence reduced from 5 to 4 years imprisonment.
  • Stapleton: Confiscation order reduced to £1,615,789 with 4 years imprisonment in default.