Confiscation orders and abuse of process: discretion to prevent "double whammy" under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Michael Stockdale; Rebecca Mitchell

Confiscation orders and abuse of process: discretion to prevent "double whammy" under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Michael Stockdale, Rebecca Mitchell

Law Department

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Explores the circumstances in which the making of an application for a confiscation order might amount to an abuse of process entitling the court to grant a stay of proceedings. Outlines the facts leading to the Court of Appeal decision in R. (on the application of BERR) v Lowe and reviews the case law referred to by the Court of Appeal. Highlights other cases decided subsequent to Lowe.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	39-45
Journal	The Company Lawyer
Volume	31
Issue number	2
Publication status	Published - 2010

Keywords

Process (Law)

Access to Document

Confiscation orders and abuse of processAccepted author manuscript, 196 KB

Cite this

@article{9eac45b5f3fb4335912451fe2b323035,

title = "Confiscation orders and abuse of process: discretion to prevent {"}double whammy{"} under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002",

abstract = "Explores the circumstances in which the making of an application for a confiscation order might amount to an abuse of process entitling the court to grant a stay of proceedings. Outlines the facts leading to the Court of Appeal decision in R. (on the application of BERR) v Lowe and reviews the case law referred to by the Court of Appeal. Highlights other cases decided subsequent to Lowe.",

keywords = "Process (Law)",

author = "Michael Stockdale and Rebecca Mitchell",

year = "2010",

language = "English",

volume = "31",

pages = "39--45",

journal = "The Company Lawyer",

issn = "0144-1027",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confiscation orders and abuse of process: discretion to prevent "double whammy" under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

AU - Stockdale, Michael

AU - Mitchell, Rebecca

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Explores the circumstances in which the making of an application for a confiscation order might amount to an abuse of process entitling the court to grant a stay of proceedings. Outlines the facts leading to the Court of Appeal decision in R. (on the application of BERR) v Lowe and reviews the case law referred to by the Court of Appeal. Highlights other cases decided subsequent to Lowe.

AB - Explores the circumstances in which the making of an application for a confiscation order might amount to an abuse of process entitling the court to grant a stay of proceedings. Outlines the facts leading to the Court of Appeal decision in R. (on the application of BERR) v Lowe and reviews the case law referred to by the Court of Appeal. Highlights other cases decided subsequent to Lowe.

KW - Process (Law)

UR - http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=458&productid=7056

M3 - Article

SN - 0144-1027

VL - 31

SP - 39

EP - 45

JO - The Company Lawyer

JF - The Company Lawyer

IS - 2

ER -

Confiscation orders and abuse of process: discretion to prevent "double whammy" under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this