ECHR again...

[Mich the Tester]

This is how law becomes weakened by good intentions and sympathetic cases.

As to defending property, well this is the whole point of the proceeds of crime act, it means it isn't the criminals property and it never was. Not sure how you can confuse that with an innocent person being deprived of their legally acquired property by fraudulent government officials and retrospective legislation.

And in such cases, individual property rights, which are pretty fundamental, are to be balanced against the needs of the public. The drug dealer and the undocumented worker are two completely different categories of crime with completely differing impacts on the public, and the ECHR rightly ticked the British government on the fingers for not balancing those rights.

[darmstadt]

Presumably though if he had of been an oligarch who had got his millions from, lets say, not too legal means yet had bought a rather large and expensive property in London and flashed the cash, then such an act would not have happened (although he may be here legally, he may be wanted in other countries...)

[vetran]

Presumably though if he had of been an oligarch who had got his millions from, lets say, not too legal means yet had bought a rather large and expensive property in London and flashed the cash, then such an act would not have happened (although he may be here legally, he may be wanted in other countries...)

indeed, this is why justice should be blind.

[vetran]

And in such cases, individual property rights, which are pretty fundamental, are to be balanced against the needs of the public. The drug dealer and the undocumented worker are two completely different categories of crime with completely differing impacts on the public, and the ECHR rightly ticked the British government on the fingers for not balancing those rights.

why?

Just because his crime was 'lesser' (who defines this objectively?) why is his right to the illegally obtained money more?

If he had fiddled benefits would he be more entitled to the money or less?
If he had defrauded a little old lady etc.

too many grey areas! Too much money for lawyers.

[Mich the Tester]

Just because his crime was 'lesser' (who defines this objectively?)

1; yes
2; courts

[vetran]

1; yes
2; courts

I respect your opinion but I fear you are wrong.

[Mich the Tester]

I respect your opinion but I fear you are wrong.

No, I think you feel the court's decision was wrong.

[vetran]

No, I think you feel the court's decision was wrong.

both. I was being polite.