Powell & Anor, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 1043 (27 July 2016)

Powell & Anor, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 1043 (27 July 2016)

The necessary conditions for attributing the company's pecuniary advantage to the respondents were not established. The facts did not justify piercing the corporate veil under the concealment or evasion principles. The respondents had no personal liability for the clean-up costs, and their criminal liability was secondary to the company's. Therefore, the benefit to the company could not be treated as a benefit to the respondents for confiscation purposes.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 1043
Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: Jacqueline Powell; Respondent: Jonathan Westwood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Under Section 31 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Confiscation Orders, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Environmental Offences, Corporate Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Corporate Law Environmental Law Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Confiscation Orders Piercing the Corporate Veil Environmental Offences Corporate Criminal Liability

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

Jacqueline Powell

Respondent

Jonathan Westwood

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Under Section 31 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pecuniary advantage obtained by a company through avoidance of environmental clean-up costs can be attributed to individual directors for the purposes of confiscation orders under POCA 2002
  2. 2 Whether piercing the corporate veil is justified in the circumstances of this case

Ratio Decidendi

The necessary conditions for attributing the company's pecuniary advantage to the respondents were not established. The facts did not justify piercing the corporate veil under the concealment or evasion principles. The respondents had no personal liability for the clean-up costs, and their criminal liability was secondary to the company's. Therefore, the benefit to the company could not be treated as a benefit to the respondents for confiscation purposes.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Confiscation orders made by the judge below remain in place