Clipston v R. (Rev 1)

Clipston v R. (Rev 1)

The CEA 1995 does not apply to confiscation proceedings under POCA; nor does the CJA 2003 strictly, but its framework is to be applied by analogy. Hearsay evidence is admissible if the judge, acting judicially and fairly, considers it appropriate, having regard to reliability and opportunity to challenge. The trial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Vincent Clipston; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Proceedings, Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Proceedings Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Procedure

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Clipston

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by admitting out of court statements of a co-accused (Menga) as hearsay evidence in confiscation proceedings under s.114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Civil Evidence Act 1995 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003 governs the admissibility of hearsay evidence in confiscation proceedings under POCA
  3. 3 Whether, absent the Menga evidence, there was sufficient evidence to justify the confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The CEA 1995 does not apply to confiscation proceedings under POCA; nor does the CJA 2003 strictly, but its framework is to be applied by analogy. Hearsay evidence is admissible if the judge, acting judicially and fairly, considers it appropriate, having regard to reliability and opportunity to challenge. The trial judge's decision to admit the Menga evidence was correct and, even if excluded, the confiscation order was justified on other evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order of £500,000 upheld