BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Stannard, Re In the Matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2015] EWHC 1199 (Admin) (05 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1199.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 1199 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL RICHARD STANNARD |
Defendant |
|
- and - |
||
IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 |
____________________
Mr Oliver Powell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Mr Andrew Bird (instructed by PCB Litigation) for the Enforcement Receiver
Hearing date: 22 April 2015
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Andrews:
The Confiscation Order
The Receivership Order
"shall, after such payments (if any) as the High Court may direct have been made out of those sums, be applied on the defendant's behalf towards the satisfaction of the confiscation order."
"The costs of the Receivership shall be paid out of the assets received by the Receiver and in priority to any other payment required or provided for by this Order other than the costs of realisation, the recoverable costs shall be reasonable costs and in the event of a dispute about the reasonableness the matter shall be referred to a Costs Judge in accordance with Part 69 Rule 3…."
"Paragraph 5 shall operate as a direction under section 81(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by which the Receiver shall draw his remuneration, costs and expenses from the assets received by him in priority to any payment to the Magistrates' Court on the defendant's behalf towards the satisfaction of the confiscation order."
The contempt proceedings
"the Respondent, Michael Richard Stannard, has been guilty of contempt (as set out in the affidavits of David Ingram and Bathsheba Cassel) in that he has failed to cooperate with the receiver and that contempt being persistent and far reaching and it is difficult to find a case of a more persistent refusal."
In the light of the history of Mr Ingram's dealings with Mr Stannard, which is conveniently set out at paragraphs 12-26 of Mr Ingram's Third Witness Statement dated 2 November 2011, that seems to me to be fair comment.
Enter Mr Hardy
Mr Stannard's Application
1. The impact of taking the Godalming property out of the Receivership
"the underlying foundation for this reference is that information is now available to the court which was not available to the Recorder or to this court during the first appeal…. The situation now is that there is a judgment of the High Court reached after full consideration of the evidence which conflicts with the decision made by the Recorder sitting in the Crown Court during the confiscation hearing. That situation cannot be allowed to persist. And it is conceded by the respondent that the proper course for the court is to allow the appeal in respect of the benefit which the Recorder found emanated from [the mother's property]. That is the course which we propose to take."[my emphasis].
2. The challenge to deduction of the Enforcement Receiver's remuneration and expenses and legal costs from the recovered funds in priority to payment into court.
3. The fruits of settlement
"there may well be circumstances when it is appropriate for the prosecution to exercise their powers under s.80 and s. 82 to attempt to bring assets within the category of realisable property which had not been brought into that category in the hearing of the Crown Court."
4. Assessment of the Enforcement Receiver's fees, costs and expenses
CONCLUSION