Evidence and Variation of Confiscation Orders: R v O'Flaherty (Carl Anthony) (Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 29th of October 2018)

C. Singh
{"title":"Evidence and Variation of Confiscation Orders: R v O'Flaherty (Carl Anthony) (Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 29th of October 2018)","authors":"C. Singh","doi":"10.1515/ICE-2018-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The appellant (O'Flaherty) (O) was appealing against two confiscation orders. In short, this case demonstrates that a judge can increase the value of a confiscation order made pursuant to s. 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) where adequate evidence is presented. The increase resulted from the fact that the Crown had discovered a further asset (property) that could be realized. O contended that a third party had an interest in the property and the value of the confiscation orders should not be increased. After questioning O and the third party the judge concluded that O's claim was not made out and the judge had not erred.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ICE-2018-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The appellant (O'Flaherty) (O) was appealing against two confiscation orders. In short, this case demonstrates that a judge can increase the value of a confiscation order made pursuant to s. 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) where adequate evidence is presented. The increase resulted from the fact that the Crown had discovered a further asset (property) that could be realized. O contended that a third party had an interest in the property and the value of the confiscation orders should not be increased. After questioning O and the third party the judge concluded that O's claim was not made out and the judge had not erred.
没收令的证据及变更:R诉O'Flaherty (Carl Anthony)(上诉法院刑事分庭,2018年10月29日)
上诉人O’flaherty (O)对两项没收令提起上诉。简而言之,本案表明,在证据充分的情况下,法官可以根据《2002年犯罪收益法》(POCA)第22条提高没收令的价值。增加的原因是王室发现了一项可以变现的资产(财产)。O争辩说,第三者对该物业有权益,不应增加没收令的价值。在询问了小O及第三者后,法官认为小O的申索并不成立,法官并没有犯错。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信