Peacock & Anor, R v

Peacock & Anor, R v

The Judge was entitled to include unidentified assets as realisable property based on reasonable inferences from the evidence. The sum of £100,000 held by Scott was properly included as a realisable asset for each appellant, as there was no evidence it was irrecoverable. The failure to deduct £29,000 from Peacock's assets was an error but did not affect the outcome, as his realisable assets still exceeded the amount to be recovered. The Judge properly exercised discretion under section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.

Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Mark Peacock; Appellant: Michael Anthony Gillett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Confiscation Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Confiscation Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Appeals
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Confiscation Orders Proceeds of Crime Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Mark Peacock

Appellant

Michael Anthony Gillett

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in increasing the amounts to be recovered under confiscation orders pursuant to section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether unidentified assets can be included as realisable property
  3. 3 Whether the sum of £100,000 held by Scott should be included as a realisable asset for each appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was entitled to include unidentified assets as realisable property based on reasonable inferences from the evidence. The sum of £100,000 held by Scott was properly included as a realisable asset for each appellant, as there was no evidence it was irrecoverable. The failure to deduct £29,000 from Peacock's assets was an error but did not affect the outcome, as his realisable assets still exceeded the amount to be recovered. The Judge properly exercised discretion under section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals of Gillett and Peacock are dismissed.
  • The parties should seek to agree any order for costs. If there is any issue as to costs, submissions should be made in writing and responded to in writing.