McIntosh & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1501 (22 June 2011)

McIntosh & Anor v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1501 (22 June 2011)

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, and the confiscation orders for the full benefit were justified on the evidence and within the statutory scheme.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 1501
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 / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Following Conviction
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Realisable Assets, Burden of Proof, MTIC Fraud, Interpretation of S.71(6) Criminal Justice Act 1988
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Realisable Assets Burden of Proof MTIC Fraud Interpretation of S.71(6) Criminal Justice Act 1988

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leroy McIntosh

First Appellant

Michael Marsden

Second Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Following Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 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, and the confiscation orders for the full 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 upheld