We often get confusion on here whenever discussing criminal offences and criminal trials, and many have the simplistic view that if you are not found “guilty” then you are “innocent” and many firmly believe that that is the final and unequivocal position under English law. This is not so, as a case published recently demonstrates.

In the case of Serious Organised Crime Agency v Hymans, Keeble and others it has been held that SOCA was entitled to civil recovery orders against individuals and a company in respect of property derived from the proceeds or profits of drug dealing and money laundering, despite the lack of criminal convictions for those offences.

The court stated that an acquittal in criminal proceedings did not conclusively establish that a defendant did not commit the criminal act alleged; just that the evidence against him was not enough to discharge the burden of proof (‘beyond reasonable doubt’), and SOCA had satisfied the court that, on the balance of probabilities, the property was derived from drug dealing on a big scale.

The whole of the defendants’ property, including properties in England and Spain, was thus liable to be confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act. All of it. This Act wasn’t, the court said, incompatible with Human Rights legislation, and that the court was not making imputations of criminal liability; The fact that the findings might implicitly cast doubt on an acquittal was not a breach of human rights.

So, defendants who have never been found guilty can still have all their property seized as proceeds of crime. I think this makes the point, but wonder what the Sin Bin panel makes of it?

I seriously doubt that is the end of the matter and would expect an appeal process will soon be initiated

Nothing new. If you visit Guildhall in the City of London you will see an inscription referring back to the days when it was used as a Court. A jury found a man innocent but the judge over-ruled them and had the "innocent" man hung, drawn to Westminster where he was quartered.

The balance of probabilities burden of proof isnt that rare. A defendant can be found in breach of his/her bail conditions, and then remanded in custody, based on the balance of probabilities.

And Luis Suarez was fined £40,000 and suspended on the basis of the balance of probabilities plus a bit!

Smacks a bit of the Scottish legal system's "Not Proven" principle.

Then you don't understand the verdict then.

This is a clash between the criminal system and the civil law.

I understand the verdict perfectly well. In fact, this is nothing new as the power to do this has always been there ever since the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Section 5 to be precise).

My reference to the Scottish system was because the "Not Proven" verdict usually implies that a defendant wasn't innocent but the evidence was not quite strong enough to give a 'beyond reasonable doubt' guilty verdict. SOCA use a similar principle in that they make the argument that while the evidence was not strong enough to give a guilty criminal verdict, there is still enough evidence to satisfy the 'balance of probabilities' test of the civil system.

There is no clash between the criminal and civil law as you suggest - the threshold is different and this kind of thing happens all the time. For example, where I used to work we had an employee who was fraudulently using his company credit card and got caught. He was found not guilty at crown court but we were able to sue him and recover the value of the goods he had bought in civil court as the district judge agreed that on the balance of probability he had been the person who had acquired them.

It is obvious you don't, the defendant was found not guilty in a criminal court



That would be the clash between civil and criminal law then?

Not a clash at all - more a difference in burden of proof reflecting the difference in retribution?

I didn't think you'd like that word "clash", as I can't picture you as a Joe Strummer fan somehow.
I agree with your reply ... and Happy New Year, by the way.