Regina v Montilla, Newbury etc: CACD 3 Nov 2003

The Crown appealed a decision that a conviction under subsection 2 required proof that the money the disposal of which the defendant was accused to have assisted was in fact the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Held: Subsections 1 and 2 were clearly differently worded. Under section 1 it was necessary to prove that the goods were the proceeds of trafficking, but subsection 2 was addressed to the state of mind of the defendant, and included no such requirement. The judge had been wrong to import one.


Scott Baker LJ, Jackson, Hunt JJ


Times 12-Nov-2003, [2003] CAR 36


Drug Trafficking Act 1994 49(1) 49(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 31


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedM, Regina v; Regina v Z; Regina v I; Regina v R; Regina v B (No 2) CACD 27-Apr-2007
The defendants, accused of offences under the 2000 Act, appealed an interim finding that documents stored on computers could amount to ‘articles’ within the Act. They said that the existence of sections 57 and 58 suggested two distinct regimes, one . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.188682