Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon [2021] EWCA Crim 798

Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time.


Full judgment: BAILII


  • Unfitness and insanity cases🔍

Date: 27/5/21🔍

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)🔍



  • Ihenacho🔍
  • London Borough of Croydon🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 30/5/21 08:32

Cached: 2024-04-21 21:48:29