Whittington v R.

Whittington v R.

The prosecution proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant had obtained property to the value of £8.8 million, triggering statutory assumptions under s.10, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the available amount was less than the benefit; the judge's misdirection did not affect the outcome.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Whittington; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Confiscation Order, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Criminal Lifestyle, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Criminal Lifestyle 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Whittington

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge applied the correct burden and standard of proof in determining the recoverable amount under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant obtained property to the value of £8,814,840
  3. 3 Whether the assumptions under s.10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were properly triggered

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant had obtained property to the value of £8.8 million, triggering statutory assumptions under s.10, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the available amount was less than the benefit; the judge's misdirection did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • confiscation order in the sum of £9,672,176.92 upheld
  • ten years imprisonment in default upheld