CPS (Durham) v N [2009] EWCA Crim 1573 (28 July 2009)

CPS (Durham) v N [2009] EWCA Crim 1573 (28 July 2009)

Confiscation proceedings are not an abuse of process merely because the result may be harsh or oppressive; the statutory regime must be applied as enacted. Voluntary repayment or recovery of property does not preclude confiscation unless statutory conditions are met. Wages earned through deception are benefit for confiscation purposes. The prosecution may appeal a stay of confiscation proceedings under section 31(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 1573
Parties
Appellant: CPS (Durham); Respondent: John Nelson; Appellant: CPS (Nottingham); Respondent: Ramesh Pathak; Prosecutor: R; Appellant: Didier Paulet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Applications Regarding Confiscation Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
Appeal by prosecution allowed in Nelson and Pathak; appeal by Paulet dismissed.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Abuse of Process, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Voluntary Reparation, Statutory Interpretation, Prosecutorial Discretion
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Confiscation Orders Abuse of Process Benefit From Criminal Conduct Voluntary Reparation Statutory Interpretation +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPS (Durham)

Appellant

John Nelson

Respondent

CPS (Nottingham)

Appellant

Ramesh Pathak

Respondent

R

Prosecutor

Didier Paulet

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Applications Regarding Confiscation Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confiscation proceedings constituted an abuse of process in each case
  2. 2 Whether voluntary repayment or compensation affects the making of a confiscation order
  3. 3 Whether wages earned through deception constitute benefit for confiscation purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Confiscation proceedings are not an abuse of process merely because the result may be harsh or oppressive; the statutory regime must be applied as enacted. Voluntary repayment or recovery of property does not preclude confiscation unless statutory conditions are met. Wages earned through deception are benefit for confiscation purposes. The prosecution may appeal a stay of confiscation proceedings under section 31(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Court Disposition

Appeal by prosecution allowed in Nelson and Pathak; appeal by Paulet dismissed.

Orders

  • Confiscation order made against Nelson in the sum of £14,337.75.
  • Paulet's appeal against confiscation order dismissed; order stands.