R v Ahmad and Anor; R v Fields and Ors [2014] UKSC 36 – S 71(4) POCA - HRA - ECHR - A1P1.
1) presumption of innocence in article 6.2 ECHR does not apply to confiscation hearings as they part of sentencing not the criminal trial.
2) a confiscation hearing was more civil than criminal and, as per s 6(7) POCA, issues could be decided on balance of probabilities.
3) where two or more Ds obtain control of property jointly each of them obtains all of it.
4) disproportionate for the state to take the same proceeds of crime more than once.
- hence, where joint obtaining, the confiscation order although made against each D for the whole value of the benefit jointly obtained, should limit total recovery to the joint benefit.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Green [2008] UKHL 30 - S 6 POCA.
- confiscation orders - "benefit". - where two or more Ds obtain control of property jointly each of them obtains all of it. - R v Ahmad and Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 391 – S 71(4) CJA 1988 - (s 76(4) POCA).
- proceeds of crime – confiscation order. - benefit from offence - meaning of property obtained as a result of or “in connection with its commission”. - R v Waller was clearly wrong and the Court of Appeal was not rigidly bound by the doctrine of stare decisis. - the costs of committing an offence do not form part of the benefit of the offence; they cannot be deducted from the benefit, but neither should they be added. - R v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042 – Ss 6, 76(4), 76(7), 80 and 84 POCA.
- confiscation order where more than one D jointly obtains benefit. 1) where Ds have jointly obtained benefit, its value is to be assessed as the whole amount with regard to each D with no apportionment between them. 2) confiscation order may only be made up to value of the amount of the available assets. – in assessing the “available amount” the court may have regard to what each D has himself received and retained. 3) proportionality (after R v Waya). - not disproportionate for more than one D to each be liable for full amount of benefit from proceeds of their crime. - lack of proportionality not to be assessed simply by focusing on orders also made against others or of payments made by others, or by potential for multiple recovery.