Jones, R v

Jones, R v

The judge erred in law by treating section 10(6) as conferring a general discretion to refuse to make confiscation orders where benefit was established; the Act requires the making of an order once benefit is found, and section 10(6) only moderates the calculation of benefit, not the obligation to make an order.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Barry John Jones; Respondent: Samantha Jane Jones; Respondent: Natalie Richards; Respondent: Paul Desmond Lawes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Confiscation Orders
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit Assessment, Criminal Lifestyle, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Benefit Assessment Criminal Lifestyle Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Barry John Jones

Respondent

Samantha Jane Jones

Respondent

Natalie Richards

Respondent

Paul Desmond Lawes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to make confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 despite evidence of benefit
  2. 2 Whether section 10(6) of the Act gives the judge discretion to refuse to make an order based on hardship or ephemeral benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by treating section 10(6) as conferring a general discretion to refuse to make confiscation orders where benefit was established; the Act requires the making of an order once benefit is found, and section 10(6) only moderates the calculation of benefit, not the obligation to make an order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Crown Court at Cardiff for calculation of benefit and available amount in accordance with the Act, to be listed before a different judge from Judge Bidder QC.