Stephen Pigott v Crown Prosecution Service

Stephen Pigott v Crown Prosecution Service

The applicant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate for payment of the outstanding confiscation order. The explanations for the dissipation or unavailability of assets were unsubstantiated and inconsistent with previous accounts. The application was not an abuse of process but was fundamentally an impermissible attack on findings made at the confiscation hearing, and the applicant's credibility was undermined by lack of reliable evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Pigott; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Administrative Application / Judgment on Application for Certificate of Inadequacy
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Certificates of Inadequacy, Abuse of Process, Hidden Assets
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Certificates of Inadequacy Abuse of Process Hidden Assets

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Pigott

Applicant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Administrative Application / Judgment on Application for Certificate of Inadequacy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's realisable property is inadequate for payment of the outstanding confiscation order under section 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the application is an abuse of process or precluded by finality principles

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate for payment of the outstanding confiscation order. The explanations for the dissipation or unavailability of assets were unsubstantiated and inconsistent with previous accounts. The application was not an abuse of process but was fundamentally an impermissible attack on findings made at the confiscation hearing, and the applicant's credibility was undermined by lack of reliable evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused