Crown Prosecution Service v Richards & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 849 (27 June 2006)

Crown Prosecution Service v Richards & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 849 (27 June 2006)

Where all matrimonial assets are proceeds of drug trafficking and the applicant spouse had guilty knowledge, public policy dictates that such assets should not be distributed in ancillary relief proceedings; the judge erred in awarding a lump sum and failing to give decisive weight to the tainted nature of the assets.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 849
Parties
Appellant: Crown Prosecution Service; 1st Respondent: Lindsay Jane Richards; 2nd Respondent: Anthony Stephen Richards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Confiscation of Assets, Drug Trafficking Proceeds, Public Policy, Matrimonial Property
Family Law Criminal Law Ancillary Relief Confiscation of Assets Drug Trafficking Proceeds Public Policy Matrimonial Property

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Appellant

Lindsay Jane Richards

1st Respondent

Anthony Stephen Richards

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tainted assets from drug trafficking can be distributed in ancillary relief proceedings when the spouse has guilty knowledge
  2. 2 How to balance public policy against deprivation of criminal proceeds with welfare of dependants under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Ratio Decidendi

Where all matrimonial assets are proceeds of drug trafficking and the applicant spouse had guilty knowledge, public policy dictates that such assets should not be distributed in ancillary relief proceedings; the judge erred in awarding a lump sum and failing to give decisive weight to the tainted nature of the assets.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for lump sum of £39,250 set aside
  • Restraint order varied: figure of £75,000 substituted with £35,750