Dare v Crown Prosecution Service

Dare v Crown Prosecution Service

The appellant's actions were too preparatory to constitute an arrangement that facilitated the acquisition of criminal property by another person as required by section 328(1); the statutory language requires present facilitation, not a future or potential facilitation.

Parties
Claimant: Dare; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
Conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Section 328(1), Handling Stolen Goods, Interpretation of Criminal Statutes
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Section 328(1) Handling Stolen Goods Interpretation of Criminal Statutes

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dare

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'facilitates' in section 328(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's actions were too preparatory to constitute an arrangement that facilitated the acquisition of criminal property by another person as required by section 328(1); the statutory language requires present facilitation, not a future or potential facilitation.

Court Disposition

Conviction quashed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction under section 328(1) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 quashed