Powell & Anor, R. v

Powell & Anor, R. v

The necessary conditions for rendering the respondents liable to a confiscation order for the company’s avoided liability were not established; neither concealment nor evasion principles applied, and there was no personal obligation independent of the company’s involvement.

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
Outcome
application for leave refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Proceeds of Crime Act, Director Liability, Environmental Offences
Criminal Law Corporate Law Environmental Law Confiscation Orders Piercing the Corporate Veil Proceeds of Crime Act Director Liability Environmental Offences

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 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents can be held liable for company’s pecuniary advantage under POCA
  2. 2 Application of the evasion and concealment principles for piercing the corporate veil
  3. 3 Attribution of company’s avoided liability to individual directors

Ratio Decidendi

The necessary conditions for rendering the respondents liable to a confiscation order for the company’s avoided liability were not established; neither concealment nor evasion principles applied, and there was no personal obligation independent of the company’s involvement.

Court Disposition

application for leave refused

Orders

  • confiscation orders made by the judge below remain in place