R v Malcolm Teasdale

R v Malcolm Teasdale

The applicant's grounds are not reasonably arguable as the lawfulness of the confiscation order has already been determined, the statutory criteria for appointing an Enforcement Receiver were met, enforcement is proportionate, and no human rights breach or procedural error is established.

Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Teasdale; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Appointing Enforcement Receiver
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Enforcement Receiver, Appeal Procedure, Human Rights, Criminal Property
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Enforcement Receiver Appeal Procedure Human Rights Criminal Property

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Teasdale

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Appointing Enforcement Receiver

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order appointing an Enforcement Receiver was lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's human rights were breached by the order
  3. 3 Whether new evidence or procedural errors justified leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's grounds are not reasonably arguable as the lawfulness of the confiscation order has already been determined, the statutory criteria for appointing an Enforcement Receiver were met, enforcement is proportionate, and no human rights breach or procedural error is established.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for leave to appeal is refused.