Andrewes, R. v
It was disproportionate to make a confiscation order in the recoverable amount because the appellant, though obtaining employment and remuneration by deception, gave full value for his work and was lawfully entitled to hold the positions; thus, the confiscation order would constitute a double penalty contrary to the statutory aim of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Jon Andrewes
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; confiscation order quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Confiscation Orders, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Proportionality, Employment by Deception
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Jon Andrewes
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether remuneration obtained through employment by deception constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
- 2 Whether making a confiscation order in the recoverable amount is disproportionate under s.6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Ratio Decidendi
It was disproportionate to make a confiscation order in the recoverable amount because the appellant, though obtaining employment and remuneration by deception, gave full value for his work and was lawfully entitled to hold the positions; thus, the confiscation order would constitute a double penalty contrary to the statutory aim of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; confiscation order quashed.
Orders
- Confiscation Order dated 26 July 2018 quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment