O'Donoghue, Re Criminal Justice Act 1988

O'Donoghue, Re Criminal Justice Act 1988

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not accounting for the sum of £35,500 and its fruits, as required. The burden is on the applicant to show what has happened to all realisable assets found at the time of the confiscation order, and Article 6 ECHR does not modify this requirement.

Parties
Applicant/defendant: Keith James O’Donoghue; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate of Inadequacy Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Judgment After Hearing of Application
Outcome
application for certificate of inadequacy refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Certificate of Inadequacy, Burden of Proof, Hidden Assets
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Certificate of Inadequacy Burden of Proof Hidden Assets

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith James O’Donoghue

Applicant/defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Certificate of Inadequacy Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Judgment After Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a certificate of inadequacy due to depreciation or loss of realisable assets since the confiscation order
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof includes accounting for the income or fruits of assets found to be realisable at the time of the confiscation order
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights modifies the burden of proof where 'hidden assets' are involved

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not accounting for the sum of £35,500 and its fruits, as required. The burden is on the applicant to show what has happened to all realisable assets found at the time of the confiscation order, and Article 6 ECHR does not modify this requirement.

Court Disposition

application for certificate of inadequacy refused