THOMAS JOSEPH O’CONNOR v CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

THOMAS JOSEPH O’CONNOR v CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

Applicant failed to prove, on balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate for payment of the confiscation order, as he did not account for hidden assets or demonstrate their depreciation or unavailability; transfers to spouse are gifts caught by the Act and remain realisable property.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Joseph O’Connor; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate of Inadequacy Under Section 83 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Certificate of Inadequacy, Realisable Property, Hidden Assets
Criminal Law Asset Recovery Confiscation Orders Certificate of Inadequacy Realisable Property Hidden Assets

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Joseph O’Connor

Applicant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Certificate of Inadequacy Under Section 83 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's realisable property is inadequate for payment of the confiscation order
  2. 2 Whether assets transferred to spouse are gifts caught by the 1988 Act
  3. 3 Whether hidden assets have been dissipated or are no longer available

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to prove, on balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate for payment of the confiscation order, as he did not account for hidden assets or demonstrate their depreciation or unavailability; transfers to spouse are gifts caught by the Act and remain realisable property.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed