The judge, when making a confiscation order, had assumed that the onus of proving the amount that might be realised was upon the prosecution. The defendant appealed.
Held: MacPherson J said: ‘The judge furthermore resolved to decide this case upon the assumption that the onus of proving that the assets of the appellant (namely the extraordinarily large sums going into his accounts) were still available to him lay upon the Crown. He had no difficulty in concluding that the onus of proof was discharged. It may well be that this approach was more favourable to the appellant than it should have been (see the helpful decision of Auld J. in R v Rees).’
and ‘Auld J’s decision is an important one in this developing field. It appears to us to show that this appellant was favourably treated by the trial judge rather than the reverse. This view is, in our judgment, confirmed by reference to the decision of R v Ilsemann…’
Citations:
12 March 1993, unreported
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mcintosh and Another v Regina CACD 22-Jun-2011
The appellants argued that the court had misdirected itself in law when concluding that neither appellant had satisfied him that the amount that might be realised at the time he made the confiscation orders was less than the agreed amount of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.655490