Hindley, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2100 (28 July 2011)

Hindley, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2100 (28 July 2011)

The confiscation order was based on the assumption that all funds in the ING account were proceeds of crime, but credible evidence established that the funds were inheritance, except for £500 and its interest. The appellant met the burden of rebutting POCA assumptions, warranting a reduced confiscation order.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 2100
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Michael Hindley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
confiscation order quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Admissibility of New Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Michael Hindley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the monies in the ING bank account were proceeds of general criminal conduct or inheritance
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  3. 3 Proper calculation of benefit and available amount for confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was based on the assumption that all funds in the ING account were proceeds of crime, but credible evidence established that the funds were inheritance, except for £500 and its interest. The appellant met the burden of rebutting POCA assumptions, warranting a reduced confiscation order.

Court Disposition

confiscation order quashed and substituted

Orders

  • New confiscation order for £23,153.26
  • 28 days for payment