AG v Kenward [2000] JRC 64 (12 April 2000)

AG v Kenward [2000] JRC 64 (12 April 2000)

The Court exercised its discretion to make a confiscation order because the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking, and it would be inappropriate for tainted money to be used to pay legal fees. The absence of a funded legal aid system or obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights did not justify withholding the confiscation order.

Citation
[2000] JRC 64
Parties
Defendant: Michael Thomas Kenward; Prosecution: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing and Confiscation Order
Outcome
Application for non-confiscation of tainted money for legal fees dismissed; confiscation order made.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Drug Trafficking, Legal Aid, Proceeds of Crime, Human Rights

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

Parties

Michael Thomas Kenward

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing and Confiscation Order

  1. 1 Whether a confiscation order should be made in respect of cash representing proceeds of drug trafficking
  2. 2 Whether tainted money can be used to pay legal fees
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a funded legal aid system affects the confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to make a confiscation order because the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking, and it would be inappropriate for tainted money to be used to pay legal fees. The absence of a funded legal aid system or obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights did not justify withholding the confiscation order.

Court Disposition

Application for non-confiscation of tainted money for legal fees dismissed; confiscation order made.

Orders

  • Confiscation order in the sum of £1,040 made against Michael Thomas Kenward.