Gohil & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1858 (11 November 2025)

Gohil & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1858 (11 November 2025)

There was no good reason shown for the adjournment; the applicant had sufficient time to instruct counsel, the grounds of appeal were already settled, and vacating the hearing would cause unfair prejudice and delay contrary to the interests of justice.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1858
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Bhadresh Gohil; Applicant: James Ibori
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Adjourn Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
application to adjourn refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Adjournment Application, Leave to Appeal, Money Laundering
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Adjournment Application Leave to Appeal Money Laundering

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Bhadresh Gohil

Applicant

James Ibori

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Adjourn Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing of the renewed application for leave to appeal against confiscation orders should be adjourned
  2. 2 Whether sufficient grounds exist to vacate the hearing date to allow new counsel to prepare

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason shown for the adjournment; the applicant had sufficient time to instruct counsel, the grounds of appeal were already settled, and vacating the hearing would cause unfair prejudice and delay contrary to the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

application to adjourn refused

Orders

  • Application to vacate the hearing date is rejected.