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.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Waller [2008] EWCA Crim 2037 - S 6 POCA.
- confiscation orders. - calculation of "benefit" - evasion of duty payable on smuggled cigarettes. - court is concerned with both the duty evaded and the purchase price of the goods. - 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.