Harriott v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2294 (07 November 2012)
The confiscation order was made on a mistaken legal basis, as the judge failed to consider the appellant's husband's beneficial interest in the property, which reduced the appellant's realisable assets. The order must be quashed and substituted with one reflecting only the appellant's true interest.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] EWCA Crim 2294
- Parties
- Appellant: Paula Harriott; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Confiscation Order, Beneficial Interest, Drug Trafficking, Third Party Interests, Certificate of Inadequacy
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paula Harriott
Appellant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confiscation order was flawed due to incorrect assessment of the appellant's beneficial interest in the matrimonial home
- 2 Whether the Crown Court erred in failing to consider the husband's equitable interest at the time of the order
Ratio Decidendi
The confiscation order was made on a mistaken legal basis, as the judge failed to consider the appellant's husband's beneficial interest in the property, which reduced the appellant's realisable assets. The order must be quashed and substituted with one reflecting only the appellant's true interest.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- confiscation order quashed
- new confiscation order substituted for £15,671.84
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