Reynolds v R

Reynolds v R

The making of the confiscation order was not disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, and the existence of a repayment agreement and personal circumstances did not render the order unjust. The appropriate time for considering the impact of sale of the family home is at the enforcement stage.

Parties
Appellant: Jacqueline Reynolds; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Proportionality, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Social Security Fraud
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Proportionality Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Social Security Fraud

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Reynolds

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation order was disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a repayment agreement renders the confiscation order unjust
  3. 3 Whether personal and medical circumstances should affect the making of a confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The making of the confiscation order was not disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, and the existence of a repayment agreement and personal circumstances did not render the order unjust. The appropriate time for considering the impact of sale of the family home is at the enforcement stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order in the sum of £21,686.73 upheld