P, Re

P, Re

The court is bound by the authority of R v Tivnan, which holds that section 16 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 applies to after-acquired assets. There is no persuasive reason not to appoint a receiver in the absence of realistic proposals from the respondent, and the policy of the legislation requires enforcement. However, the respondent is given a short period to seek expedited permission to appeal before enforcement proceeds.

Parties
Applicant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: Mark Peacock; Intervener: Gerrard Peacock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confiscation/enforcement / Application for Appointment of Receiver and Related Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part; receiver appointed; enforcement suspended for a short period to allow appeal; costs awarded 50/50 against respondent and intervener.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Drug Trafficking, After Acquired Assets, Appointment of Receiver, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Confiscation Orders Drug Trafficking After Acquired Assets Appointment of Receiver Costs Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Applicant

Mark Peacock

Respondent

Gerrard Peacock

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confiscation/enforcement / Application for Appointment of Receiver and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 over after-acquired property for the purposes of increasing a confiscation order and appointing a receiver
  2. 2 Whether a receiver should be appointed in the circumstances
  3. 3 Apportionment of costs between respondent and intervener

Ratio Decidendi

The court is bound by the authority of R v Tivnan, which holds that section 16 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 applies to after-acquired assets. There is no persuasive reason not to appoint a receiver in the absence of realistic proposals from the respondent, and the policy of the legislation requires enforcement. However, the respondent is given a short period to seek expedited permission to appeal before enforcement proceeds.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; receiver appointed; enforcement suspended for a short period to allow appeal; costs awarded 50/50 against respondent and intervener.

Orders

  • A receiver is appointed in the terms of the draft order, with specified deletions.
  • The receiver shall not enforce a sale of the properties before 22 February 2010 without leave of the court.