Rowbotham, R v

Rowbotham, R v

The appellant's role in warehousing dutiable goods constituted participation in the evasion of duty, thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage and a benefit under the relevant statutory provisions. The confiscation order was correctly imposed as the appellant's conduct fell within the scope of persons liable for duty evasion.

Parties
Appellant: John Thomas Rowbotham; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Pecuniary Advantage, Duty Evasion, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Customs and Excise Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Pecuniary Advantage Duty Evasion Benefit From Criminal Conduct

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Thomas Rowbotham

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant benefited from criminal conduct for purposes of confiscation order
  2. 2 Whether warehousing dutiable goods constitutes obtaining a pecuniary advantage
  3. 3 Whether the basis of plea limits the scope of confiscation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's role in warehousing dutiable goods constituted participation in the evasion of duty, thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage and a benefit under the relevant statutory provisions. The confiscation order was correctly imposed as the appellant's conduct fell within the scope of persons liable for duty evasion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • confiscation order in the sum of £249,252 upheld
  • three years' imprisonment in default of payment maintained