R v Waya

Ivan Krolick, for the appellant, and Oliver Grimwood, for the respondent, submitted on the appeal before the Supreme Court. The case concerned the meaning and effect of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, dealing with post-conviction confiscation. The appeal concerned the calculation of benefit and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. The majority of the Court held that the confiscation order was to be made in the sum of £392,400, while Lord Phillips and Lord Reed dissented. The majority held that the benefit obtained by Mr Waya from his criminal behaviour was a thing in action with no immediate market value. The benefit came to have a significant value, that is 60 per cent of the appreciation in the net value of the flat, subject to the mortgage. The majority considered that the confiscation order based on the POCA benefit was proportionate. Lord Phillips and Lord Reed dissented from the majority's conclusion that the POCA benefit was the same as the real benefit that Mr Waya obtained from his crime. They proposed to explain their problems with the majority's analysis before setting out their own approach to this case. They held that the property initially obtained by Mr Waya as a result of his criminal conduct was the flat. They concluded that the confiscation order should be proportionate to the benefit obtained by Mr Waya from his criminal conduct.