Pritchard, R v (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Crim 1267 (27 July 2017)

Pritchard, R v (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Crim 1267 (27 July 2017)

The correct test under section 13A is whether a compliance order is appropriate, not necessary; proportionality and justification must be considered. In this case, a travel restriction was appropriate due to the appellant's international connections and risk of absconding, but an indefinite order was not justified. The order should be limited to the earlier of full satisfaction of the confiscation order or three years.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 1267
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: John Pritchard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Compliance Order (travel Restriction) Under Section 13 a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Compliance Orders, Travel Restriction Orders, Proportionality, Interpretation of 'appropriate' Under Section 13 a
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Compliance Orders Travel Restriction Orders Proportionality Interpretation of 'appropriate' Under Section 13 a

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

John Pritchard

Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a travel restriction compliance order under section 13A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires necessity or appropriateness
  2. 2 Whether the indefinite duration of the travel restriction was justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The correct test under section 13A is whether a compliance order is appropriate, not necessary; proportionality and justification must be considered. In this case, a travel restriction was appropriate due to the appellant's international connections and risk of absconding, but an indefinite order was not justified. The order should be limited to the earlier of full 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 the earlier of full satisfaction of the confiscation order or three years from the date of the order, with liberty to apply to vary or discharge under section 13A(5).