Arthur v AG and AG v Arthur and Ors [2020] JCA 016 (29 January 2020)

Arthur v AG and AG v Arthur and Ors [2020] JCA 016 (29 January 2020)

Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR does not require a confiscation order to be reduced to nil where a civil settlement is less than the criminal benefit; the correct approach is to deduct the amount restored to the victim from the benefit figure to avoid double counting, but the defendant must not retain part of his criminal gains. The Royal Court erred in reducing the confiscation order to nil and misapplied the law on proportionality and discretion. Exceptional circumstances justified the postponement of the confiscation hearing.

Citation
[2020] JCA 016
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Richard David Arthur; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General; Intervenor: Pamela June Arthur; Intervenor: Maureen Patricia Brunker
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Attorney General's appeal allowed; Mr Arthur's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Compensation Orders, Proceeds of Crime (jersey) Law 1999, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Discretion in Sentencing, Double Counting, Civil Settlements and Criminal Benefit, Exceptional Circumstances for Postponement
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Compensation Orders Proceeds of Crime (jersey) Law 1999 Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Discretion in Sentencing +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard David Arthur

Appellant/respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Pamela June Arthur

Intervenor

Maureen Patricia Brunker

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR operates to reduce a confiscation order to nil where a civil settlement is less than the criminal benefit
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court erred in its application of proportionality and discretion under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justified postponement of the confiscation hearing beyond six months

Ratio Decidendi

Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR does not require a confiscation order to be reduced to nil where a civil settlement is less than the criminal benefit; the correct approach is to deduct the amount restored to the victim from the benefit figure to avoid double counting, but the defendant must not retain part of his criminal gains. The Royal Court erred in reducing the confiscation order to nil and misapplied the law on proportionality and discretion. Exceptional circumstances justified the postponement of the confiscation hearing.

Court Disposition

Attorney General's appeal allowed; Mr Arthur's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Confiscation order substituted in an amount equal to the realisable value of Mr Arthur's assets, less the sum restored to Faircliff, to be calculated by the Attorney General.
  • Compensation order in favour of Victim 3 for £88,904 upheld.