AG v Simon (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : MacRae) [2025] JRC 241 (1 October 2025)

AG v Simon (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : MacRae) [2025] JRC 241 (1 October 2025)

The Court held that the respondent's inheritance of Elm Farm constituted a significant increase in realisable property after the original confiscation order. Article 19 required the Court to issue a certificate to that effect and then exercise its discretion to vary the order. Applying relevant English authorities, the Court found no injustice or hardship in varying the order, given the respondent's circumstances and the value of Elm Farm, and substituted a new confiscation amount accordingly.

Citation
[2025] JRC 241
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Simon
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confiscation Order Variation / Post Conviction, Application to Vary Confiscation Order Under Article 19
Outcome
Confiscation order varied; new amount substituted.
Legal Topics
Variation of Confiscation Order, After Acquired Property, Drug Trafficking Proceeds, Judicial Discretion, Human Rights (a1 P1)
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Variation of Confiscation Order After Acquired Property Drug Trafficking Proceeds Judicial Discretion Human Rights (a1 P1)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Simon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confiscation Order Variation / Post Conviction, Application to Vary Confiscation Order Under Article 19

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should vary the confiscation order under Article 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 to reflect after-acquired property (Elm Farm) inherited by the respondent after the original order.
  2. 2 What principles govern the exercise of discretion in varying a confiscation order to include after-acquired assets.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondent's inheritance of Elm Farm constituted a significant increase in realisable property after the original confiscation order. Article 19 required the Court to issue a certificate to that effect and then exercise its discretion to vary the order. Applying relevant English authorities, the Court found no injustice or hardship in varying the order, given the respondent's circumstances and the value of Elm Farm, and substituted a new confiscation amount accordingly.

Court Disposition

Confiscation order varied; new amount substituted.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay £100,000 within 28 days in partial discharge of the amended confiscation order.
  • Viscount to realise realisable property (including Elm Farm) but not before 2 September 2026, giving respondent 12 months to raise funds without sale.