Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 377 (Oct)
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

May LJ, David Clarke and Teare JJ

Representation Ivan Krolick (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
  Martin Beddoe (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Revenue.
Judgment Dates: 31 October 2006

Catchwords

Sentence - Confiscation order - Realisable property - Putative possible future receipt of lump sum under pension fund - Whether realisable property - Whether judge erring in including lump sum in assessment of realisable property - , s 71, 74.

The Case

The sought to define realisable property and should be viewed in the context of the draconian legislation whose purpose was to confiscate that which the defendant was able to realise. The property had to be realisable in some way. Whilst realisable property could extend to a contingent beneficial interest under a will, it did not extend to a putative possible future receipt of a lump sum under a pension fund upon which no loan could be raised.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.