LEGAL LIABILITY

Legal Liability



Legal Liability

Q1- Referring to the case in question and the remedies available for Alvarez's position and the compensation for DNC by the land purchased by Jara. In this case we can liken it to a situation of conversion and confiscation as Alvarez and DNC are undergoing bad times due to Jara's decision to let the dacoits steal the jewelery worth 2.5 million dollars. The land purchased by Jara is however in Gold coast and the prices of that land have shot up. Applying the principles of conversion law it would be possible to obtain that land as the basis of its purchase has to do with a criminal case and the property can be legally confiscated. nversion is a common law tort. Confiscation is an intricate area of law, but is further complicated by the fact that there are still six different Acts governing when and how applications are made and decided. A common thread is the three questions that a court must ask itself when considering an application: (1) Has the defendant benefitted from relevant criminal conduct? (2) If so, what is the value of the benefit the defendant has so obtained? (3) What sum is recoverable from the defendant? Where issues of criminal lifestyle arise the questions must be modified to take account of them. This article is a brief guide to some of this year's case law. While each case refers directly to a specific piece of legislation, they often have application to the others and the principles are usually to be applied whichever Act is used. The subjects we will consider are: · Where a number of defendants obtain benefit as part of a common enterprise, how should that benefit be apportioned between them? · When a defendant agrees to steal money by cheque that will be made payable to another in return for a specific, lesser, amount, what is his benefit? · The relationship between confiscation and compensation: if a defendant has already paid confiscation, can the court still make a confiscation order in the full sum (and thereby make the defendant pay twice)? R v Morgan; R v Bygrave [2008] EWCA Crim 1323 Under several of the legislative schemes, including POCA 2002, a confiscation order is mandatory where an application is made and the test is made out. The court has no discretion whether or not to ultimately make the order - unless the victim had made, or intended to make, a civil claim to recover his loss, when the order does become discretionary. But what happens when no such civil claim is made or even likely, because the defendant had already repaid or stood ready to pay? The statutes provide for no discretion in a defendant's favour. While one of the appeals concerned the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (amended by POCA 1995) and the other POCA 2002, the legislative schemes were much the same. The case of Morgan concerned a police officer who befriended but cheated an elderly lady out of ...