Grant, Re

Grant, Re

The appellant failed to provide any grounds undermining the judge’s findings regarding his interest in the property or his contempt of court. The committal order was properly made due to his admitted non-compliance with the restraint order. The receivership order was justified based on the evidence of his beneficial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Caul Grant; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (criminal/confiscation/contempt) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against committal order allowed by consent; application for permission to appeal receivership order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Committal for Contempt, Appointment of Receiver, Human Rights (echr)
Criminal Law Confiscation Proceedings Contempt of Court Drug Trafficking Act 1994 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Committal for Contempt Appointment of Receiver Human Rights (echr)

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caul Grant

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (criminal/confiscation/contempt) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal order for contempt of court should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the order appointing a receiver over the appellant's property interest should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide any grounds undermining the judge’s findings regarding his interest in the property or his contempt of court. The committal order was properly made due to his admitted non-compliance with the restraint order. The receivership order was justified based on the evidence of his beneficial interest. However, the CPS agreed it was not in the public interest to enforce the committal, so the appeal against committal was allowed by consent, but the application for permission to appeal the receivership order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against committal order allowed by consent; application for permission to appeal receivership order dismissed.

Orders

  • Committal order set aside by consent; appellant not to be committed to prison for contempt.
  • Permission to appeal receivership order refused; receivership order stands.