Pritchard, R v (Rev 1)

Pritchard, R v (Rev 1)

The court held that the statutory test under section 13A is whether a compliance order is 'appropriate', not 'necessary'. The judge's balancing exercise was justified given the appellant's international connections, concealed assets, and risk of absconding. However, an indefinite travel restriction was not proportionate or justified; the order should be limited to the earlier of satisfaction of the confiscation order or three years.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: John Pritchard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Compliance Order (travel Restriction) Under Section 13 a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Compliance Orders, Travel Restriction Orders, Proportionality, Interpretation of 'appropriate' Under Statute
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Compliance Orders Travel Restriction Orders Proportionality Interpretation of 'appropriate' Under Statute

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

John Pritchard

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Compliance Order (travel Restriction) Under Section 13 a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach to making a compliance order with a foreign travel restriction under section 13A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?
  2. 2 Is the imposition of an indefinite travel restriction order proportionate and justified in the circumstances of this case?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory test under section 13A is whether a compliance order is 'appropriate', not 'necessary'. The judge's balancing exercise was justified given the appellant's international connections, concealed assets, and risk of absconding. However, an indefinite travel restriction was not proportionate or justified; the order should be limited to the earlier of satisfaction of the confiscation order or three years.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The compliance order is varied to provide that the travel restriction lasts until satisfaction in full of the confiscation order or three years from the date of the order, whichever is earlier, subject to the right to apply to vary or discharge.