Chambers, R. v

The confiscation order was invalid because the prosecution relied on superseded regulations (Excise Goods Regulations 1992) instead of the applicable Tobacco Product Regulations 2001, and no finding of fact was made regarding the appellant's liability under the correct regulations. The court cannot make such a finding on appeal, and the prosecution failed to present the relevant statutory provisions at first instance.

Parties: Appellant: William Chambers; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 17 October 2008
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Confiscation Orders, Excise Duty Evasion, Statutory Interpretation, Secondary Legislation Accessibility

Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Customs and Excise Confiscation Orders Excise Duty Evasion Statutory Interpretation Secondary Legislation Accessibility

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

William Chambers

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the appellant obtained a pecuniary advantage by evading excise duty under the correct statutory regulations
2 Whether the confiscation order was valid given the prosecution's reliance on superseded regulations
3 Whether the appellant's basis of plea was binding in confiscation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

confiscation order quashed
judgment to be made available to advisers of co-defendant Dennard for consideration of further action