P, Re [2010] EWHC 3740 (Admin) (18 December 2009)

P, Re [2010] EWHC 3740 (Admin) (18 December 2009)

The court held that it was bound by the decision in R v Tivnan, which established that section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 applies to after-acquired assets. In the absence of realistic proposals from the respondent and given the policy of the legislation, a receiver should be appointed over the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3740 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: Mark Peacock; Intervener: Gerrard Peacock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Receiver and Declaration of Beneficial Interest Under Drug Trafficking Act 1994 / High Court Judgment Following Contested Application
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Appointment of Receivers, Beneficial Interest in Property, After Acquired Assets, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Confiscation Orders Appointment of Receivers Beneficial Interest in Property After Acquired Assets Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Applicant

Mark Peacock

Respondent

Gerrard Peacock

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Receiver and Declaration of Beneficial Interest Under Drug Trafficking Act 1994 / High Court Judgment Following Contested Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a receiver should be appointed over properties in which the respondent has a beneficial interest
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction over after-acquired property under section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994
  3. 3 Whether enforcement proceedings were completed within a reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was bound by the decision in R v Tivnan, which established that section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 applies to after-acquired assets. In the absence of realistic proposals from the respondent and given the policy of the legislation, a receiver should be appointed over the respondent's beneficial interest in the properties. However, enforcement of sale is suspended to allow the respondent time to seek leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Receiver appointed over respondent's beneficial interest in six properties, except for specified deletions in the draft order.
  • Declaration that respondent has a 50% beneficial interest in each of the six properties and had a 100% interest in 6 Virginia Gardens, Great Sankey, Warrington.