Evans, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 671 (10 June 2016)

Evans, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 671 (10 June 2016)

The delay in the confiscation proceedings was reasonable given the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct, and delays attributable to foreign authorities; there was no breach of Article 6.1 ECHR. The confiscation order properly reflected the applicant's benefit from criminal conduct, and findings of fact...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 671
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Duncan Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (confiscation Order)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Money Laundering, Delay in Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Joint Benefit in Criminal Assets
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Money Laundering Delay in Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Joint Benefit in Criminal Assets

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Duncan Evans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence (confiscation Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in confiscation proceedings breached Article 6.1 ECHR right to a hearing within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order should account for joint benefit or prior satisfaction of assets under other orders
  3. 3 Whether findings of fact regarding specific assets were irrational or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in the confiscation proceedings was reasonable given the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct, and delays attributable to foreign authorities; there was no breach of Article 6.1 ECHR. The confiscation order properly reflected the applicant's benefit from criminal conduct, and findings of fact regarding assets were supported by evidence and not irrational. The inclusion of a time-barred loan as an asset was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused