![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Axworthy, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2889 (13 December 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2889.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Crim 2889 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE GLOBE
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
LIAM AXWORTHY |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7422 6138
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss A McCracken (Solicitor Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The purpose of confiscation proceedings is to recover the financial benefit that the offender has obtained from his criminal conduct."
A confiscation order must therefore bear a proportionate relationship to this purpose.
"If the court decides under subsection (4)(b) or (c) that the defendant has benefited from the conduct referred to it must —
(a) decide the recoverable amount, and
(b) make an order (a confiscation order) requiring him to pay that amount."
Paragraph 16 of the judgment in Waya goes on to state:
"It is plainly possible to read paragraph (b) as subject to the qualification:
'except insofar as such an order would be disproportionate and thus a breach of Article 1, Protocol 1.'"
"To the extent that Rose held at para 88 that the recovery and restoration intact of the stolen property was always irrelevant to the making of a confiscation order, that part of the decision should not be followed."