Dare v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 2074 (Admin) (13 July 2012)

Dare v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 2074 (Admin) (13 July 2012)

The arrangement between the appellant and Mick was too preparatory, as no price had been agreed and no prospective purchaser identified; thus, it did not facilitate the acquisition of criminal property by another person at the relevant time as required by section 328(1).

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dare; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Section 328(1), Arrangements Facilitating Acquisition of Criminal Property, Handling Stolen Goods

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 by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted an offence under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by entering into an arrangement facilitating the acquisition of criminal property by another

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangement between the appellant and Mick was too preparatory, as no price had been agreed and no prospective purchaser identified; thus, it did not facilitate the acquisition of criminal property by another person at the relevant time as required by section 328(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 quashed.