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.
Parties
Regina
Prosecution
Michael Hindley
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the monies in the ING bank account were proceeds of general criminal conduct or inheritance
- 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment