HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. HARRY McSALLEY [2000] ScotHC 49 (10th April, 2000)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. HARRY McSALLEY [2000] ScotHC 49 (10th April, 2000)

The court held that the statutory assumptions under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 do not infringe Article 6(2) ECHR or Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as they are confined within reasonable limits, serve a legitimate public interest, and allow for rebuttal by the accused. The calculation of proceeds was adjusted to reflect legitimate income, but a confiscation order was still appropriate for the remaining unexplained sum.

Citation
[2000] ScotHC 49
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: Harry McSalley; Minuter/interested Party: Mrs McSalley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 9 of the Proceeds of Crime (scotland) Act 1995 / Post Conviction Confiscation Order Hearing
Outcome
Confiscation order granted
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Drug Trafficking, Statutory Assumptions, Presumption of Innocence, Proportionality, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Drug Trafficking Statutory Assumptions Presumption of Innocence Proportionality +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

Harry McSalley

Accused

Mrs McSalley

Minuter/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 9 of the Proceeds of Crime (scotland) Act 1995 / Post Conviction Confiscation Order Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory assumptions under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 are compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR (presumption of innocence) and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (property rights)
  2. 2 Whether the calculation of proceeds of drug trafficking should be adjusted for legitimate income sources
  3. 3 Whether the confiscation order is proportionate and justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory assumptions under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 do not infringe Article 6(2) ECHR or Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as they are confined within reasonable limits, serve a legitimate public interest, and allow for rebuttal by the accused. The calculation of proceeds was adjusted to reflect legitimate income, but a confiscation order was still appropriate for the remaining unexplained sum.

Court Disposition

Confiscation order granted

Orders

  • Accused ordered to pay £19,548 under section 1 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995