Kakkad, R v

Kakkad, R v

The court retains jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under POCA even if a forfeiture order has previously been made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The benefit for confiscation purposes is the value of the property obtained by the offender at the time of obtaining, regardless of subsequent seizure by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Freshkumar Kakkad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Jurisdiction Under POCA, Assessment of Benefit, Drug Trafficking, Proportionality of Orders
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Jurisdiction Under POCA Assessment of Benefit Drug Trafficking Proportionality of 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Freshkumar Kakkad

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to make a confiscation order after a forfeiture order under section 27 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was made
  2. 2 Proper assessment of 'benefit' under POCA where drugs were seized before realisation
  3. 3 Correct valuation of drugs for confiscation purposes, particularly when not all could be cut with available benzococaine

Ratio Decidendi

The court retains jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under POCA even if a forfeiture order has previously been made under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The benefit for confiscation purposes is the value of the property obtained by the offender at the time of obtaining, regardless of subsequent seizure by authorities. However, the value of cocaine for confiscation must be based on the actual ability to cut it with available benzococaine; unmatched cocaine must be valued at its undiluted wholesale value. The judge erred in valuing all cocaine as if it could be cut, and the benefit figure must be reduced accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Benefit figure reduced to reflect proper valuation of cocaine unmatched by benzococaine
  • Confiscation order otherwise upheld