R v Harvey (Appellant)

In this case, the appellant, Jack Harvey, was convicted of handling stolen goods and arson. He appealed against a confiscation order made pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, arguing that Value Added Tax (VAT) which he had accounted for to HMRC should have been subtracted from the turnover figure prior to the calculation of the benefit obtained for the purposes of the confiscation order. The Supreme Court held that although VAT accounted for to HMRC should not be included in the assessment of the benefit obtained, the question of what to do if the VAT has not been paid or accounted for remains undecided. The majority of the court found that including VAT in the confiscation order would amount to double recovery and be disproportionate, while Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson dissented, arguing that VAT should be treated like any other tax or outgoing and disregarded in the assessment of the benefit obtained. The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal and to remit the case to the Crown Court for reconsideration of the confiscation order in light of the court's decision.