Liscott, R. v

Liscott, R. v

The trial judge was entitled to find that each applicant had hidden assets based on the evidence, including covert recordings, asset ownership, and inconsistent explanations. The apportionment of benefit and the confiscation orders were justified given the applicants' roles in the conspiracy. The default sentences imposed were within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive. The hearing was fair and the judge's conduct appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Liscott; Applicant: James Toon; Applicant: Andrew Liscott; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Drug Offences, Conspiracy, Hidden Assets, Sentencing
Criminal Law Confiscation Orders Drug Offences Conspiracy Hidden Assets Sentencing

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Liscott

Applicant

James Toon

Applicant

Andrew Liscott

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the existence of hidden assets for each applicant
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation orders were unduly harsh or excessive
  3. 3 Whether the default sentences imposed were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find that each applicant had hidden assets based on the evidence, including covert recordings, asset ownership, and inconsistent explanations. The apportionment of benefit and the confiscation orders were justified given the applicants' roles in the conspiracy. The default sentences imposed were within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive. The hearing was fair and the judge's conduct appropriate.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Mark Liscott's application for leave to appeal against confiscation order refused
  • Andrew Liscott's application for leave to appeal against confiscation order refused