Morgan, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1307 (23 July 2013)

Morgan, R v [2013] EWCA Crim 1307 (23 July 2013)

The appellant, by engaging in unlawful unlicensed waste disposal, evaded landfill tax, licence fees, and associated costs, thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage constituting 'benefit' under POCA. The confiscation order of £156,500 was not disproportionate or a breach of A1P1, as the benefit was properly calculated based on agreed expert evidence and statutory assumptions. The operation was correctly classified as 'disposal' rather than 'recovery'.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 1307
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Christopher Lynn Morgan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Environmental Protection Act 1990, Landfill Tax, Waste Disposal Offences, Confiscation Orders, Abuse of Process, Pecuniary Advantage, Disproportionate Orders, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Criminal Law Environmental Law Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Landfill Tax Waste Disposal Offences Confiscation Orders Abuse of Process +3 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Christopher Lynn Morgan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confiscation proceedings were an abuse of process or oppressive
  2. 2 Whether the appellant benefitted from criminal conduct under POCA
  3. 3 Whether the operation was 'disposal' or 'recovery' under waste regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, by engaging in unlawful unlicensed waste disposal, evaded landfill tax, licence fees, and associated costs, thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage constituting 'benefit' under POCA. The confiscation order of £156,500 was not disproportionate or a breach of A1P1, as the benefit was properly calculated based on agreed expert evidence and statutory assumptions. The operation was correctly classified as 'disposal' rather than 'recovery'.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order of £156,500 upheld