Morrison, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 351 (08 March 2019)

Morrison, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 351 (08 March 2019)

The Recorder erred in law by conflating proportionality under section 6(5)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with general hardship or injustice to third parties and by failing to consider that the possibility of enforcement, including appointment of a receiver, is not relevant to the proportionality analysis at the order-making stage. The inability or unwillingness of a third party to return a tainted gift does not make its inclusion in a confiscation order disproportionate. The statutory aim is to remove the proceeds of crime, and the tainted gifts regime is deliberately severe to prevent offenders from shielding assets.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 351
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Peter Edwin Morrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Tainted Gifts, Proportionality, Enforcement Receivers, Third Party Rights
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Tainted Gifts Proportionality Enforcement Receivers Third Party Rights

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

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Peter Edwin Morrison

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in law by ruling it would be disproportionate to include a tainted gift in the confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the inability to recover a tainted gift from a third party precludes its inclusion in a confiscation order
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of an enforcement receiver is relevant to the proportionality analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in law by conflating proportionality under section 6(5)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with general hardship or injustice to third parties and by failing to consider that the possibility of enforcement, including appointment of a receiver, is not relevant to the proportionality analysis at the order-making stage. The inability or unwillingness of a third party to return a tainted gift does not make its inclusion in a confiscation order disproportionate. The statutory aim is to remove the proceeds of crime, and the tainted gifts regime is deliberately severe to prevent offenders from shielding assets.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The confiscation order is varied to include the tainted gift in the sum of £41,409.56.
  • Payment to be made within three months from the date of the order.