J v Crown Prosecution Service

J v Crown Prosecution Service

The restraint order was justified on the evidence as the appellant was found to have 'obtained' the proceeds of the conspiracy within the meaning of s.71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the assets restrained did not exceed the alleged proceeds. The only material non-disclosure by the CPS was inadvertent and would not have affected the decision to grant the order. The duty of full and frank disclosure applies, but failure does not automatically require discharge of the order if the public interest still requires it.

Parties
Appellant: J; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (restraint Order) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Confiscation Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Ex Parte Applications
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Restraint Orders Confiscation Orders Disclosure Obligations Piercing the Corporate Veil Ex Parte Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (restraint Order) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint order was justified on the evidence under s.77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Prosecution Service failed in its duty of disclosure and the effect of any such failure
  3. 3 The meaning of 'benefit' under s.71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the purposes of restraint and confiscation orders

Ratio Decidendi

The restraint order was justified on the evidence as the appellant was found to have 'obtained' the proceeds of the conspiracy within the meaning of s.71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the assets restrained did not exceed the alleged proceeds. The only material non-disclosure by the CPS was inadvertent and would not have affected the decision to grant the order. The duty of full and frank disclosure applies, but failure does not automatically require discharge of the order if the public interest still requires it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Restraint order continued against the appellant
  • Crown Prosecution Service to pay the appellant’s costs of the application before Leveson J