HM Revenue & Customs v Chott

HM Revenue & Customs v Chott

On a proper understanding of the legal principles and the evidence, no reasonable bench could have failed to exercise its power under section 43 to forfeit the whole sum. The magistrates erred in returning part of the money and in treating Mr Grant's evidence as unchallenged.

Parties
Claimant: HM Revenue & Customs; Respondent: Gary Ullah Chott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed, magistrates' order quashed, order for forfeiture of entire sum substituted, costs below awarded to appellant, respondent given 28 days to apply
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Forfeiture of Cash, Magistrates' Discretion, Standard of Proof
Criminal Law Forfeiture Drug Trafficking Forfeiture of Cash Magistrates' Discretion Standard of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Revenue & Customs

Claimant

Gary Ullah Chott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrates were entitled to return part of the seized money after finding it was intended for use in drug trafficking
  2. 2 Whether magistrates were correct to treat Mr Grant's evidence as unchallenged

Ratio Decidendi

On a proper understanding of the legal principles and the evidence, no reasonable bench could have failed to exercise its power under section 43 to forfeit the whole sum. The magistrates erred in returning part of the money and in treating Mr Grant's evidence as unchallenged.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, magistrates' order quashed, order for forfeiture of entire sum substituted, costs below awarded to appellant, respondent given 28 days to apply

Orders

  • Order quashing magistrates' decision
  • Order for forfeiture of £24,580