Att. Gen. v. Cleaver
Att. Gen. v. Cleaver [2016] 1 JLR_Note 19 (08 April 2016)
Criminal law note concerning drugs and the proceeds of trafficking in Att. Gen. v. Cleaver.
- Drugs
- Proceeds of trafficking
- Criminal-law
- Proceeds-of-trafficking
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Jersey decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Att. Gen. v. Cleaver [2016] 1 JLR_Note 19 (08 April 2016)
Criminal law note concerning drugs and the proceeds of trafficking in Att. Gen. v. Cleaver.
Att. Gen. v McFeat [2013] 2 JLR_Note 11 (05 July 2013)
Jersey criminal law note concerning drugs and the proceeds of trafficking, in Att. Gen. v McFeat.
Att. Gen. v Da Silva [2008] JLR_Note 12 (03 March 2008)
Criminal law note on whether a confiscation order should be made in relation to the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Att. Gen. v Soares [2008] JLR_Note 7 (01 February 2008)
Criminal law note concerning proceeds of drug trafficking in Attorney General v Soares, reported in the Jersey Law Reports.
Att. Gen. v O'Connor [2007] JLR_Note 25 (28 February 2007)
Note on a confiscation order in a drug trafficking matter, where the court made a confiscation order against the respondent.
Att. Gen. v Gaish [2007] JLR_Note 5 (05 December 2006)
Criminal law note on a confiscation order for drug trafficking proceeds, with imprisonment in default of payment ordered.
Att. Gen. v Styles [2006] JLR_Note 5 (01 March 2006)
In this Jersey criminal law note, the court made a confiscation order against Styles in relation to proceeds of drug trafficking.
Whelan v Att. Gen. [2005] JLR_Note 46 (09 November 2005)
Criminal appeal concerning a confiscation order linked to the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Lloyd v Att. Gen. [2004] JLR_Note 28 (09 June 2004)
A Jersey criminal law note addressing proceeds of drug trafficking and confirming that such proceeds are liable to confiscation under the relevant law.
In re Batalla-Esquival v [2002] JLR 192 (07 February 2002)
The court held it had no statutory or inherent power to require a cross-undertaking in damages for a saisie judiciaire; discharge remained the available remedy.
Explore more