Palmer, R. v

Palmer, R. v

Section 3(1) of the PSIA criminalises engagement in licensable conduct without a licence, making the activity itself prohibited and unlawful. Income derived from such conduct constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under POCA and is subject to confiscation.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Keith Anthony Palmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Ruling on Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Licensable Conduct, Private Security Industry Act, Proceeds of Crime Act
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Confiscation Orders Licensable Conduct Private Security Industry Act Proceeds of Crime Act

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Keith Anthony Palmer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Ruling on Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether engagement in licensable conduct without a licence under PSIA constitutes criminal conduct for purposes of POCA
  2. 2 Whether benefit derived from such conduct is subject to confiscation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(1) of the PSIA criminalises engagement in licensable conduct without a licence, making the activity itself prohibited and unlawful. Income derived from such conduct constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under POCA and is subject to confiscation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Crown Court to proceed afresh with the prosecution application for confiscation order