M, R (on the application of) [2008] EWHC 2226 (Admin) (24 June 2008)

M, R (on the application of) [2008] EWHC 2226 (Admin) (24 June 2008)

Payments to the defendant's father for mortgage and necessary repairs were for good consideration and not gifts, and thus can be excluded from realisable property; however, payments to criminal associates, even if made under threat, are considered gifts under the Act and cannot be excluded. The shortfall in the sale...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2226 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: M; Defendant: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Certificate of Inadequacy / Judgment on Application for Certificate of Inadequacy
Outcome
Certificate of inadequacy granted in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Certificate of Inadequacy, Drug Trafficking, Realisable Property, Gifts Under Proceeds of Crime Legislation
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Certificate of Inadequacy Drug Trafficking Realisable Property Gifts Under Proceeds of Crime Legislation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Claimant

The Queen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's realisable property is inadequate for the repayment of the confiscation order under section 17 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether certain payments (to the defendant's father and to criminal associates) can be excluded from realisable property as not being gifts under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Payments to the defendant's father for mortgage and necessary repairs were for good consideration and not gifts, and thus can be excluded from realisable property; however, payments to criminal associates, even if made under threat, are considered gifts under the Act and cannot be excluded. The shortfall in the sale value of the house can also be taken into account. The application for a certificate of inadequacy succeeds only in respect of the £6,000 paid to the father and the £3,706.12 shortfall, but not for the £21,000 paid to criminal associates or the £7,500 from the car sale.

Court Disposition

Certificate of inadequacy granted in part

Orders

  • Certificate of inadequacy issued in respect of £6,000 paid to the defendant's father and £3,706.12 shortfall in property sale value
  • Application otherwise refused