R v May

In the case of R v May, the House of Lords considered the appeal of Mr May, who was convicted of conspiracy to cheat and had a confiscation order made against him under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central issue was whether the confiscation order should be apportioned among the conspirators or if Mr May should be liable for the full amount. The Court of Appeal had upheld the confiscation order against Mr May, finding that he was jointly responsible for the fraud and had benefited from the joint property obtained. The House of Lords agreed with the Court of Appeal, holding that Mr May benefited from his offending and that he could be ordered to pay the full amount of the confiscation order. The legislation aimed to deprive defendants of the benefit they gained from relevant criminal conduct, and there was no authority for a court to apportion liability between jointly liable parties. The appeal was dismissed.

In reaching this conclusion, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of closely following the statutory language when exercising the power to make confiscation orders. The court must first establish the facts, then focus on the statutory language and apply ordinary common law principles to determine if the defendant obtained property or a pecuniary advantage and, if so, the value of any property or advantage obtained. The answering of these questions involves a historical inquiry into past transactions and should not be elided. The legislation was intended to deprive defendants of the benefit they gained from relevant criminal conduct, within the limits of their available means, and there was no warrant in the statutes for apportioning liability between jointly liable parties.