Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
You are here: HomeOther (Not Listed)Law
5 pages/≈1375 words
5 Sources
Other (Not Listed)
English (U.S.)
MS Word
Total cost:
$ 24.3

MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Legal Writing & Research LAW-UH 1011 002 Fall 2022 Memorandum of Law Assignment You have been hired by Mr Martin Evans QC who represents the Crown Prosecution Service (Regina) Respondent – Appellee (“Client”). As you know, the Client has appealed the Court of Appeal’s (the “Court”) decision in Regina v Jon Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055 to the U.K. Supreme Court as to the Court’s decision that Mr. Andrewes was not subject to a confiscation order to pay £96,737.24, the sum of money he has available. Mr Evans has asked that you please submit an interoffice memorandum to the legal team that asks which cases examined by the Court of Appeal are most apposite to this case. He asked that your Memorandum: 1. Read and explain the cases relied upon by the Court of Appeal: Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416; Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573; Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809; and Waya [2012] UKSC 51 by: a. Stating the facts of the cases; b. Stating the holdings of the cases; and c. Summarizing the courts’ reasoning in the cases. 2. Objectively analyze the issue as to whether the Court of Appeal in this case properly decided the case and state your opinion as to whether the Client has a reasonable chance of succeeding in the Supreme Court. Please use OSCOLA citation format in footnotes. Note that has UK case law freely available. source..
Memorandum of Law Date Submitted Number of Words Student’s First Name, Middle Initial(s), Last Name Institution Affiliation MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Mr. Martin Evans QC From: Student’s Name Date: October 4, 2020 RE: The application of Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416; Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573; Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809; and Waya [2012] UKSC 51 in Regina v Jon Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055 Introduction This memorandum examines the legal holding of Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416; Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573; Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809; and Waya [2012] UKSC 51. Specifically, it discusses the facts and holdings of the cases and summarizes the court's reasoning in them. The analysis will determine whether the court properly decided the case of Regina v Jon Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055, hence, revealing whether there is a possibility of succeeding in the Supreme Court. Our client, the Crown Prosecution Service (Regina), as well as the Appellee, in this case, are appealing the court's decision to quash the confiscation order to pay £96,737.24 for successful employment applications using false educational background and experience as CEO at St. Margaret's Hospice in 2004, non-executive director at Torbay NHS Care Trust, and chair of the Royal Cornwall HNHS Hospital Trust. Our position states he benefited from falsehood to gain employment and received remuneration benefits he should not have obtained.[Regina v Jon Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055] Statement of Issue Whether the Supreme Court can rule Jon Andrewes is liable to pay for the confiscation order considering the previous decisions made in the cases of Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416; Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573; Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809; and Waya [2012] UKSC 51. Analysis * Cases relied on by Court of Appeal * Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416 The appellants, Ruslan Kulish, Denis Lyashkov, Viktoriya Kulish, and John David Carter, were convicted of running a gang-mastering business using deception and dishonesty. They forged SAL2s for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants without rights to work in the UK to provide labour to other companies. The intent of the conspiracy to use false documents was to induce employers to accept illegal immigrants and asylum seekers as genuine. The Canterbury Crown Court issued a confiscation order of £50,001 and £16,443 to Lyashkov and Viktoriya, which their realisable assets would cover. The judges held that Lyashkov and Victoria both obtained employment using forged SAL2 forms, and the realization of their forgery by their employers would have led to the termination of their employment at any point. Hence, they were subject to confiscation of the wages they had earned due to pecuniary advantage, as stated in the Concealing Proceeds of Crime in the Criminal Justice Act of 1980. Mr Bodnar, Lyashkov and Viktoriya’s law used the Theft Act to argue that although the appellants had obtained their jobs by false pretence, their wages were a result of the services they provided. The court reasoned that since the appellants obtained employment by false representation, the deception continued in the course of employment to retain it. Hence, the appellants received the wages because of their false representation, making them subject to confiscation subject to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.[Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416] [Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416] * Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573 Paulet was convicted of pecuniary advantage by deception to earn greater remuneration. He was an illegal immigrant in the UK from Ivory Coast and used a false French passport to obtain employment from three employers in the UK between April 2003 and February 2007. Over his employment, he received a gross of £73,000 and a net of £50,000 after paying taxes and national insurance. The prosecution sought confiscation of £21, 949.60, the amount of the assets he had accumulated. The court refers to the R v Carter and others [2006] EWCA Crim 416 held that Paulet had obtained employment due to false representation, and his employment continued on account of false representation. Revealing his illegal immigrant status and inability to work in the UK legally would have led to the termination of his job. Hence, he obtained the wages due to his deception to get employment which was the pecuniary advantage of his criminal actions. The court ruled that an appropriate link between the appellant’s criminal activity and his earnings was defined and clear, and thus it upheld the confiscation order of the Crown Court.[Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573] [Nelson, Pathak & Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573] * Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809 The appellant was ordered to pay a confiscation after he overquoted the prices his pharmacy would be paid. The prosecutor argued that although he overquoted a little amount, all the payment was received due to overquoting the invoice. However, an appeal revealed that his benefits did not meet the threshold for a confiscation order according to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Further, it was oppressive to have a confiscation of more than the appellant had benefitted and based on the information, the court quashed the confiscation order.[Shabir [2008] EWCA Crim 1809] * Waya [2012] UKSC 51 The appellant, Mr Waya, purchased a flat with 40% of his resources and financed the rest using the mortgage he obtained with false documents. He also engaged in mortgage fraud by overvaluing the property he wanted to purchase. Due to his deception, he obtained better mortgage terms than he would have received if he had presented his true credit score and worthiness. The court found that Mr Waya benefited from his deception subject to the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002. He purchased the flat using a 60% mortgage, which he received through fraud. He benefitted from fraud, making him receive proceeds from his criminal activities, which made him have a criminal lifestyle. The court held that he was liable for confiscation of an amount equal to 60%, which he used a mortgage to purchase the flat at the value of the purchase since it equals the benefit of his crime. Hence, the court ruled the confiscation be reduced from the initial market value and the time of the court hearing to £392,400, the value he obtained as a result of his criminal activities subject to the Proceeds Act of 2002.[Waya [2012] UKSC 51] [Waya [2012] UKSC 51] * IRAC Analysis * False Representation Whether Jon Andrewes benefitted from false representation to obtain employment as CEO at St. Margaret's Hospice in 2004, non-executive director at Torbay NHS Care Trust,...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

  • Arbitration and Litigation and the Intellectual Property Law
    Description: A binding arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that states all disputes must be resolved by arbitration. Should businesses be allowed to contain binding arbitration clauses in their consumer contracts? Why, or why not? For the business, they have to be allowed to contain the binding arbitration...
    6 pages/≈1650 words| 2 Sources | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
  • The Facts and Judgment in the Caselaw
    Description: The Caselaw concerns the criminal offense of an appellant Mark Sutherland, who was convicted for the allegations of sexual offenses by public group named " Paedophile Hunters" who provide information and evidence against the sexual malpractice of appellant. Considering Sexual Laws and European Convention...
    6 pages/≈1650 words| 11 Sources | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
  • Understanding the Dispassionate Analysis
    Description: Marie Beaumont is a responsible businesswoman and she owns Alcohol's company and is also well aware of the chemical composition of her winery's products. She's having a party where Charlie and Jamie are invited. Although drinking, both are known for their conduct. They both served more drinks...
    2 pages/≈550 words| 2 Sources | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
Need a Custom Essay Written?
First time 15% Discount!