In re Rosenlund [2015] 2 JLR 29 (09 September 2015)

In re Rosenlund [2015] 2 JLR 29 (09 September 2015)

Jersey law as at the time of application governs whether overseas conduct is 'criminal conduct' for the purpose of registering an external confiscation order, and applying the amended penalty provision is not contrary to the presumption against retrospectivity or ECHR Article 7.

Citation
[2015] 2 JLR 29
Parties
Respondent: Rosenlund
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Register External Confiscation Order
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
External Confiscation Orders, Registration in Jersey, Criminal Conduct Definition, Retrospectivity, ECHR Article 7
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime External Confiscation Orders Registration in Jersey Criminal Conduct Definition Retrospectivity ECHR Article 7

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosenlund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Register External Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether overseas conduct is 'criminal conduct' for the purpose of enforcing an external confiscation order in Jersey
  2. 2 Whether Jersey law as at the time of application or at the time of offence applies to the transposed overseas conduct
  3. 3 Whether applying the amended penalty provision is contrary to the presumption against retrospectivity or ECHR Article 7

Ratio Decidendi

Jersey law as at the time of application governs whether overseas conduct is 'criminal conduct' for the purpose of registering an external confiscation order, and applying the amended penalty provision is not contrary to the presumption against retrospectivity or ECHR Article 7.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • external confiscation order registered in Jersey