Nawaz, R. v

Nawaz, R. v

The confiscation order was properly made for the full benefit figure against the applicant as the judge found the benefit was jointly obtained, there was no evidence of severally held benefit, and public policy under POCA supports full recovery. Proportionality and constructive trust arguments do not require...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Mohammed Nawaz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Confiscation Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Apportionment of Benefit, Proportionality, Constructive Trust, COVID 19 Court Procedure
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Apportionment of Benefit Proportionality Constructive Trust COVID 19 Court Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mohammed Nawaz

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was lawfully excluded from the Royal Courts of Justice due to COVID-19 concerns
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order should have been apportioned between co-conspirators rather than imposed jointly and severally on the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the order was disproportionate or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was properly made for the full benefit figure against the applicant as the judge found the benefit was jointly obtained, there was no evidence of severally held benefit, and public policy under POCA supports full recovery. Proportionality and constructive trust arguments do not require apportionment in these circumstances. The applicant's exclusion from court was justified due to unresolved COVID-19 risk and the availability of representation by counsel.

Court Disposition

application refused