*R v King

Sentence – Confiscation order. The appellant sold vehicles as a private seller when they actually formed part of his business activity in order to avoid providing a warranty. He pleaded guilty to falsely claiming or creating the impression that he was not acting for purposes relating to his trade and was ordered to pay a confiscation order which represented the turnover of the sales of the vehicles. He appealed against that order. Dismissing his appeal, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that if a transaction was inherently unlawful because of the manner in which it was conducted, that finding would militate in favour of making an order that was directed at the gross takings of the business. In the instant case, the entire undertaking had been unlawful and making an order that had been directed at the gross takings of the business had not been a disproportionate result within the meaning of art 1 of protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Category: