Stannard, Re In the Matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Stannard, Re In the Matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

The application to reduce the balance outstanding under the confiscation order by the value of the Godalming property is misconceived; the correct route is a certificate of inadequacy, which the defendant has not pursued and would not succeed given his assets. The Enforcement Receiver acted in accordance with court orders in deducting fees, costs, and expenses from recovered funds. Settlement proceeds were properly handled. Assessment of the Receiver's remuneration is premature and should occur after completion of duties. The application is an abuse of process and is dismissed.

Parties
Defendant: Michael Richard Stannard; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service; Enforcement Receiver: David Ingram (Enforcement Receiver)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application for Order Stating Balance Outstanding Under Confiscation Order and Ancillary Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Enforcement Receivership, Contempt of Court, Assessment of Costs, Certificate of Inadequacy
Criminal Law Asset Recovery Civil Procedure Confiscation Orders Enforcement Receivership Contempt of Court Assessment of Costs Certificate of Inadequacy

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Richard Stannard

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

David Ingram (Enforcement Receiver)

Enforcement Receiver

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Application for Order Stating Balance Outstanding Under Confiscation Order and Ancillary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the balance outstanding under the confiscation order should be reduced by the value of the Godalming property found not to belong to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Enforcement Receiver's fees, costs, and expenses should be deducted from recovered funds in priority to payment into court
  3. 3 Whether sums recovered from settlement with third parties should be credited in full to the confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reduce the balance outstanding under the confiscation order by the value of the Godalming property is misconceived; the correct route is a certificate of inadequacy, which the defendant has not pursued and would not succeed given his assets. The Enforcement Receiver acted in accordance with court orders in deducting fees, costs, and expenses from recovered funds. Settlement proceeds were properly handled. Assessment of the Receiver's remuneration is premature and should occur after completion of duties. The application is an abuse of process and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for order stating balance outstanding under confiscation order and ancillary relief dismissed
  • Cross-application by CPS for order enabling warrant of committal to be enforced granted