Ullah, R. v [2021] NICA 33 (27 May 2021)

Ullah, R. v [2021] NICA 33 (27 May 2021)

The trial judge was entitled to infer, based on the evidence and absence of testimony from the applicant and his wife, that the funds used to purchase the property were available to the applicant, justifying an increase in the available amount under section 172 of POCA. The judge correctly balanced the public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NICA 33
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Shakir Ullah
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewal of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Variation of Confiscation Order
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Variation of Confiscation Order, Burden of Proof, Beneficial Interest in Property, Public Interest in Confiscation
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Variation of Confiscation Order Burden of Proof Beneficial Interest in Property Public Interest in Confiscation

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Shakir Ullah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewal of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Variation of Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in varying the confiscation order under section 172 of POCA to increase the available amount based on the defendant's interest in property registered in his wife's name
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof was correctly applied in the variation proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge had sufficient evidential basis to conclude the property was funded by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to infer, based on the evidence and absence of testimony from the applicant and his wife, that the funds used to purchase the property were available to the applicant, justifying an increase in the available amount under section 172 of POCA. The judge correctly balanced the public interest in confiscation with the interests of the applicant’s family and did not err in principle or act excessively in varying the order.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the variation of the confiscation order is refused.