Morfitt, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 669 (25 May 2017)

Morfitt, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 669 (25 May 2017)

The confiscation order was properly made on the basis of the appellant's consent, which was clear and unambiguous, and there were no exceptional circumstances or unfairness in the process to justify setting aside the order; the court had jurisdiction and the statutory scheme was followed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 669
Parties
Respondent: R.; Appellant: John Robert Morfitt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Criminal Lifestyle, Consent Order, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Confiscation Order Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Criminal Lifestyle Consent Order Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

R.

Respondent

John Robert Morfitt

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation order made under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be quashed when figures for benefit and available amount were agreed by prosecution and defence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's approach to calculating the benefit figure was wrong in law
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's consent to the confiscation order precludes an appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was properly made on the basis of the appellant's consent, which was clear and unambiguous, and there were no exceptional circumstances or unfairness in the process to justify setting aside the order; the court had jurisdiction and the statutory scheme was followed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed