English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The appellant (O'Flaherty) (O) was appealing against two confiscation orders. In short, this case demonstrates that a judge can increase the value of a confiscation order made pursuant to s. 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) where adequate evidence is presented. The increase resulted from the fact that the Crown had discovered a further asset (property) that could be realized. O contended that a third party had an interest in the property and the value of the confiscation orders should not be increased. After questioning O and the third party the judge concluded that O's claim was not made out and the judge had not erred.

international commentary on evidence

Evidence and Variation of Confiscation Orders:  R v O'Flaherty (Carl Anthony)  (Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 29th of October 2018): Judge: Green LJ, Goose J and Judge Mark Brown