33 Chancery Lane

This Practice Note explains the use of confiscation orders to recover the proceeds of crime generated by regulatory breaches. It covers the power of regulatory bodies (in addition to the CPS) to bring confiscation proceedings following conviction for regulatory offences in England and Wales, the key provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) relating to the calculation of benefit from general or particular criminal conduct, issues that arise in regulatory cases so far as confiscation orders are concerned (namely, ascertaining benefit, applying the assumptions, proportionality and the concept of lifting or disregarding the corporate veil) and sets out some practical considerations for those prosecuting and defending confiscation proceedings in regulatory cases.

This Practice Note considers the concept of dishonesty in the criminal law. Dishonesty is a state of mind which is relevant in several offences. Without this essential element in offences such as theft, for example, the offence cannot be committed. Dishonesty is not fully defined in statute and the courts have sought to lay down a test for the jury to apply. This Practice Note considers the test for dishonesty as set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Ghosh and the redefined test established by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. It also covers how the discussion by the UKSC, albeit technically obiter dicta, is considered binding by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in R v Barton, R v Booth. It covers the objective nature of the dishonesty test and how this is applied to market practice.

This Practice Note covers the law relating to criminal recklessness. It deals with both Cunningham standard recklessness and Caldwell recklessness. It includes the position regarding recklessness and the case of Re G, whether subjective recklessness allows wrongdoers to escape conviction, subjective recklessness and the state of mind of wilfulness, Cunningham recklessness and the malicious state of mind, and recklessness and self-induced intoxication.

This Practice Note covers the law in relation to specific and basic intent. It gives the definition of both specific intent and basic intent including examples of offences.

This Practice Note explains what is meant by strict liability, where an offence does not require proof of a mental element. The fact that an offence is one of strict liability may be expressly stated in the statute or by necessary implication as to the effect of the statute. The Practice Note explains the factors to be considered in determining whether a statutory offence is one of strict liability as well as the available defences which are based on lack of intention..

This Practice Note deals with the law relating to transferred mens rea, sometimes referred to as transferred malice. It covers the principle of transferred mens rea, the relevance of transferred mens rea/transferred malice to secondary participation in a crime and how a charge can be based on transferred mens rea.