Axworthy, R. v

Axworthy, R. v

The confiscation order was disproportionate because the stolen vehicle had been recovered by the owner, and thus the order did not serve the legitimate aim of removing the proceeds of crime from the defendant.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Liam Axworthy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation and Compensation Orders
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Compensation Orders, Proportionality, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Compensation Orders Proportionality Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Liam Axworthy

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation and Compensation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confiscation order was disproportionate in light of the recovery of the stolen property
  2. 2 Whether the compensation order should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was disproportionate because the stolen vehicle had been recovered by the owner, and thus the order did not serve the legitimate aim of removing the proceeds of crime from the defendant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • confiscation order quashed
  • application to increase compensation order refused