Barnham, R v

Barnham, R v

Once the prosecution has established benefit, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his realisable assets. The court must avoid a serious risk of injustice, but the prosecution is not required to establish a prima facie case of hidden assets at the second stage. The judge was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence and make the confiscation order, subject to correcting a double-counting error.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant/defendant: John Thomas Barnham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Proceedings, Drug Trafficking, Burden of Proof, Hidden Assets, Article 6 ECHR

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

John Thomas Barnham

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation order gave rise to a serious risk of injustice to the appellant
  2. 2 Correct approach for a judge at the second stage of confiscation proceedings
  3. 3 Impact of Article 6(1) ECHR on confiscation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Once the prosecution has established benefit, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his realisable assets. The court must avoid a serious risk of injustice, but the prosecution is not required to establish a prima facie case of hidden assets at the second stage. The judge was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence and make the confiscation order, subject to correcting a double-counting error.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Confiscation order reduced from £1,525,615 to £1,460,615