R v S

R v S

The Recorder was entitled to vary the confiscation order, taking into account assistance to police, delay, and rehabilitation, but legislative policy to deprive criminals of proceeds of crime prevailed. A 40% reduction was reasonable and just in all circumstances.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Order Varying Confiscation Order Under S.22(4)(a) POCA 2002
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Variation of Orders, Assistance to Police, Delay, Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Variation of Orders Assistance to Police Delay Rehabilitation

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

Parties

R

Respondent

S

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Order Varying Confiscation Order Under S.22(4)(a) POCA 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court was correct to vary the confiscation order under s.22(4)(a) POCA 2002
  2. 2 Whether assistance to police should affect the amount ordered
  3. 3 Whether delay and rehabilitation justify further reduction

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to vary the confiscation order, taking into account assistance to police, delay, and rehabilitation, but legislative policy to deprive criminals of proceeds of crime prevailed. A 40% reduction was reasonable and just in all circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order varied to £108,642.81 with 40% reduction for assistance and delay
  • No further reduction granted