Bajwa & Ors, R v

Bajwa & Ors, R v

The Crown failed to prove that the appellants were involved in the conspiracy for at least six months or that they retained a connection with the goods at the excise duty point. Therefore, none of the appellants had a 'criminal lifestyle' under section 75(2)(c) of POCA, nor did they obtain a pecuniary advantage under section 76(5). The confiscation orders were not lawfully made and must be set aside.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Naripdeep Singh Bajwa; Appellant: Harish Kumar Sahnan; Appellant: Mark Anthony Midgley; Appellant: Baljunder Singh Sohi; Appellant: Stephen Mark Mallinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Following Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; confiscation orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Criminal Lifestyle, Pecuniary Advantage, Interpretation of POCA, Duty Evasion, Conspiracy
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Criminal Lifestyle Pecuniary Advantage Interpretation of POCA Duty Evasion Conspiracy

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Naripdeep Singh Bajwa

Appellant

Harish Kumar Sahnan

Appellant

Mark Anthony Midgley

Appellant

Baljunder Singh Sohi

Appellant

Stephen Mark Mallinson

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Following Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had a 'criminal lifestyle' under section 75(2)(c) of POCA
  2. 2 Whether the appellants obtained a 'pecuniary advantage' under section 76(5) of POCA
  3. 3 Whether the confiscation orders were lawfully made

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove that the appellants were involved in the conspiracy for at least six months or that they retained a connection with the goods at the excise duty point. Therefore, none of the appellants had a 'criminal lifestyle' under section 75(2)(c) of POCA, nor did they obtain a pecuniary advantage under section 76(5). The confiscation orders were not lawfully made and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; confiscation orders set aside.

Orders

  • Confiscation orders against all appellants are quashed.
  • No deprivation order made regarding the £15,000 cash seized from Mallinson.