Her Majesty's Advocate v. Wright (Confiscation Order) [2007] ScotHC HCJ_05 (29 May 2007)

Her Majesty's Advocate v. Wright (Confiscation Order) [2007] ScotHC HCJ_05 (29 May 2007)

The requirement of section 104(1)(b) is satisfied because, despite the evidence of ownership being in the public Land Registry, the prosecutor did not have that evidence at the date of conviction due to a good faith misunderstanding by the police and no report being made to Crown Office. The evidence was not available to the prosecutor in any practical sense at the relevant date.

Citation
[2007] ScotHC HCJ_05
Parties
Petitioner: Her Majesty's Advocate; Respondent: Joseph Wright
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Petition for Confiscation Order / Preliminary Issue on Availability of Evidence Under Section 104(1)(b) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
Section 104 applies; case continued for further procedure.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Availability of Evidence, Interpretation of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Section 104, Criminal Lifestyle, Ownership of Assets
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Availability of Evidence Interpretation of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Section 104 Criminal Lifestyle Ownership of Assets

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Petitioner

Joseph Wright

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Confiscation Order / Preliminary Issue on Availability of Evidence Under Section 104(1)(b) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecutor had evidence not available at the date of conviction as required by section 104(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'prosecutor' and 'available' in section 104(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of section 104(1)(b) is satisfied because, despite the evidence of ownership being in the public Land Registry, the prosecutor did not have that evidence at the date of conviction due to a good faith misunderstanding by the police and no report being made to Crown Office. The evidence was not available to the prosecutor in any practical sense at the relevant date.

Court Disposition

Section 104 applies; case continued for further procedure.

Orders

  • Appoint the case to a notional diet for consideration of further procedure.