B, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1374 (17 April 2008)

B, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1374 (17 April 2008)

The appeal was allowed because there was no justification for concluding a real risk of asset dissipation; the appellant had multiple opportunities to dissipate assets but did not do so, and the prosecution failed to provide reasoning or evidence to support such a risk.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Crim 1374
Parties
Appellant: B; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary/discharge Restraint Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Risk of Dissipation, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Confiscation Orders, Human Rights
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Restraint Orders Risk of Dissipation Benefit From Criminal Conduct Confiscation Orders Human Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary/discharge Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was reasonable cause to believe the appellant benefited from criminal conduct
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a restraint order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because there was no justification for concluding a real risk of asset dissipation; the appellant had multiple opportunities to dissipate assets but did not do so, and the prosecution failed to provide reasoning or evidence to support such a risk.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • restraint order discharged except for cash protected under Magistrates Court order
  • appellant awarded costs of appeal and proceedings below, to be taxed if not agreed