Leeming, R v

Leeming, R v

The confiscation order was quashed because the judge exceeded his powers under section 17(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and denied the appellant a fair hearing by proceeding without notice and in his absence. The correct benefit figure, based on evidence and agreement, was substituted.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Jonathan Leeming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Criminal Lifestyle Offence, Fair Hearing, Statutory Assumptions
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Criminal Lifestyle Offence Fair Hearing Statutory Assumptions

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Jonathan Leeming

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation order was lawfully made under section 17(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the appellant received a fair confiscation hearing
  3. 3 Whether the statutory assumptions under section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was quashed because the judge exceeded his powers under section 17(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and denied the appellant a fair hearing by proceeding without notice and in his absence. The correct benefit figure, based on evidence and agreement, was substituted.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Original confiscation order quashed
  • Substituted confiscation order in the sum of £221,331