- Restraint order, reasonable living expenses, other assets principle, legal expenses related to the offence (R v Luckhurst)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: The case raises issues of principle as to the scope of living and legal expenditure which should be permitted by restraint orders granted pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). The court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors which would be potentially relevant in assessing the reasonableness of any living expenses. The court also held that the ‘other assets’ principle applies to restraint orders and that the defendant bears the evidential burden in relation to the unavailability of other assets. The court finally held that while POCA 2002, s 41(4) contains an absolute prohibition on permitting expenditure on ‘legal expenses related to the offence’ it provides no bar to permitting reasonable legal expenditure in civil proceedings merely because they engage in whole or in part the same factual inquiry as will be engaged in the trial of the offence which gives rise to the restraint order. Written by James Lake, barrister at St Pauls Chambers and counsel to the CPS, led by Kennedy Talbot QC, 33 Chancery Lane.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial