B, R. v

B, R. v

There was no justification for concluding that there was a real risk the appellant would dissipate his assets, given his failure to take advantage of previous opportunities to do so and his full disclosure of assets. The restraint order was therefore discharged.

Parties
Appellant: B; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary or Discharge Restraint Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; restraint order discharged
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Dissipation of Assets, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Human Rights (article 1, First Protocol)
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Restraint Orders Dissipation of Assets Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Human Rights (article 1, First Protocol)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Vary or 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

There was no justification for concluding that there was a real risk the appellant would dissipate his assets, given his failure to take advantage of previous opportunities to do so and his full disclosure of assets. The restraint order was therefore discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; restraint order discharged

Orders

  • Restraint order discharged except for cash already protected under Magistrates Court order
  • Costs of the appeal and proceedings below to the appellant, to be taxed if not agreed