Morgan v R.

Morgan v R.

The statutory provisions do not permit the court to exercise discretion to refuse or reduce a confiscation order where the defendant has repaid or is ready to repay the victim and no civil claim is made or intended; the making of a confiscation order is mandatory once the Crown invokes the process. However, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of process if seeking confiscation would be oppressive in the specific circumstances, such as where the defendant has made or is able to make immediate full restitution.

Parties
Appellant: John Morgan; Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Rosemary Bygrave
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
Morgan: leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed; Bygrave: leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed to the extent of varying the confiscation order to direct payment to the victim.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Compensation Orders, Abuse of Process, Statutory Interpretation, Restitution
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Compensation Orders Abuse of Process Statutory Interpretation Restitution

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Morgan

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Rosemary Bygrave

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confiscation orders are mandatory where the defendant has repaid or is ready to repay the victim and no civil claim is made or intended
  2. 2 Whether the making of a confiscation order in such circumstances is oppressive and an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the statutory provisions can be construed to allow judicial discretion in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory provisions do not permit the court to exercise discretion to refuse or reduce a confiscation order where the defendant has repaid or is ready to repay the victim and no civil claim is made or intended; the making of a confiscation order is mandatory once the Crown invokes the process. However, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of process if seeking confiscation would be oppressive in the specific circumstances, such as where the defendant has made or is able to make immediate full restitution.

Court Disposition

Morgan: leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed; Bygrave: leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed to the extent of varying the confiscation order to direct payment to the victim.

Orders

  • Morgan: extension of time for compliance with confiscation order by three months to 1 December 2008.
  • Bygrave: confiscation order varied to direct that the sum of £12,768.17 be paid out of it to Messrs Haines Watts Business Recovery & Insolvency.