re Peacock Roberts and Lakeman v [2002] JRC 109 (29 May 2002)

re Peacock Roberts and Lakeman v [2002] JRC 109 (29 May 2002)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that £6,480 of the seized money represented proceeds of drug trafficking and ordered its forfeiture. The court was satisfied that the £3,000 claimed by Roberts was from legitimate earnings and not intended for drug trafficking, and ordered its release to him. The application for adjournment was refused as the factual issues were straightforward and Roberts would not be disadvantaged by lack of legal representation.

Citation
[2002] JRC 109
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent/interested Party: Martin Yann Roberts; Interested Party: Matthew Lakeman; Interested Party: Serge Peacock
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture Application (civil) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
partially allowed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Proceeds, Drug Trafficking, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Adjournment Applications
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Forfeiture of Proceeds Drug Trafficking Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Adjournment Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Martin Yann Roberts

Respondent/interested Party

Matthew Lakeman

Interested Party

Serge Peacock

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture Application (civil) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of £9,480 seized by police represents proceeds of drug trafficking or is intended for use in drug trafficking under the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988
  2. 2 Whether Martin Roberts' claimed £3,000 is legitimate or tainted
  3. 3 Whether an adjournment should be granted to allow Roberts to obtain legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that £6,480 of the seized money represented proceeds of drug trafficking and ordered its forfeiture. The court was satisfied that the £3,000 claimed by Roberts was from legitimate earnings and not intended for drug trafficking, and ordered its release to him. The application for adjournment was refused as the factual issues were straightforward and Roberts would not be disadvantaged by lack of legal representation.

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

  • Forfeiture of £6,480 as proceeds of drug trafficking.
  • Release of £3,000 plus accumulated interest to Martin Roberts.