AG v Smith [2004] JRC 168A (23 September 2004)

AG v Smith [2004] JRC 168A (23 September 2004)

Article 3(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 does not prohibit the making of a confiscation order in respect of post-Law offences merely because the indictment also contains pre-Law offences; 'proceedings' in Article 3(2) can refer to proceedings for each offence, and the Attorney General's interpretation avoids absurd and illogical consequences and aligns with legislative intent.

Citation
[2004] JRC 168A
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Intervenor: Clearwater International Limited; Intervenor: Carey Olsen Trustees Jersey Limited; Intervenor: Mr Paul Chilcott; Defendant: Defendant (unnamed); Intervenor: Defendant's wife (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Statutory Interpretation
Outcome
Application granted; jurisdiction exists to make confiscation order for post-Law offences.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Retrospective Legislation, Statutory Construction
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Confiscation Orders Proceeds of Crime Retrospective Legislation Statutory Construction

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Clearwater International Limited

Intervenor

Carey Olsen Trustees Jersey Limited

Intervenor

Mr Paul Chilcott

Intervenor

Defendant (unnamed)

Defendant

Defendant's wife (unnamed)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Statutory Interpretation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 3(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 prohibits a confiscation order in respect of post-Law offences when the indictment also contains pre-Law offences
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'proceedings' in Article 3(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Article 3(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 does not prohibit the making of a confiscation order in respect of post-Law offences merely because the indictment also contains pre-Law offences; 'proceedings' in Article 3(2) can refer to proceedings for each offence, and the Attorney General's interpretation avoids absurd and illogical consequences and aligns with legislative intent.

Court Disposition

Application granted; jurisdiction exists to make confiscation order for post-Law offences.

Orders

  • There is jurisdiction to make a confiscation order in respect of Counts 9 to 12 and 14 of the indictment, notwithstanding the presence of pre-Law offences in Counts 1 to 8.
  • A preliminary hearing is to be scheduled to determine whether the Attorney General may raise the issue of sham structures in the confiscation proceedings.