McIntosh & Anor v R.

McIntosh & Anor v R.

The judge did not misdirect himself in law; he made factual findings that neither appellant had satisfied the burden of proving that their realisable assets were less than the benefit figure. The confiscation orders in the full amount of the agreed benefit were justified on the evidence and within the statutory scheme.

Parties
First Appellant: Leroy McIntosh; Second Appellant: Michael Marsden; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Realisable Assets, Burden of Proof, Missing Trader Intra Community Fraud (mtic)
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Realisable Assets Burden of Proof Missing Trader Intra Community Fraud (mtic)

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

Leroy McIntosh

First Appellant

Michael Marsden

Second Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself in law regarding the assessment of realisable assets under s.71(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether a court is bound to make a confiscation order in the full amount of the benefit if a defendant fails to prove the extent of his assets

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not misdirect himself in law; he made factual findings that neither appellant had satisfied the burden of proving that their realisable assets were less than the benefit figure. The confiscation orders in the full amount of the agreed benefit were justified on the evidence and within the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation orders in the sum of £3,668,990 against each appellant affirmed