Lambert & Anor v R. (Rev 1)

Lambert & Anor v R. (Rev 1)

The statutory scheme and binding authorities require that each defendant be liable for the full benefit jointly obtained, without apportionment. The confiscation orders are not disproportionate and do not constitute abuse of process. The appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
First Appellant: Richard Lambert; Second Appellant: Ian Alexander Walding; Respondent: The Queen; Intervenor: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Apportionment, Proportionality, Abuse of Process, Joint Benefit
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Apportionment Proportionality Abuse of Process Joint Benefit

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

Parties

Richard Lambert

First Appellant

Ian Alexander Walding

Second Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confiscation orders against joint offenders should be apportioned to avoid double recovery
  2. 2 Whether the orders are disproportionate under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether seeking full recovery from each defendant constitutes abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme and binding authorities require that each defendant be liable for the full benefit jointly obtained, without apportionment. The confiscation orders are not disproportionate and do not constitute abuse of process. The appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation orders against both appellants in the sum of £107,860 each are upheld.
  • No apportionment between defendants.