Margot Serra and Ors v Attorney General for Gibraltar

The Privy Council will not normally revisit concurrent findings of fact unless an arguable exceptional circumstance justifies departure from that settled practice. A conclusion inferred from primary facts remains a finding of fact. Framing evidential insufficiency as statutory construction does not convert it into a question of law where the statute contains no proposed additional evidential requirement.

For civil recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2015, the prosecution must prove on the balance of probabilities that property was obtained by or in return for unlawful conduct. Section 71(1) does not require direct evidence identifying a specific pre-acquisition act and linking it to the property. Prior unlawful conduct and the property’s provenance may be inferred from the evidence considered cumulatively. An appeal as of right may nevertheless be dismissed if it is not properly arguable or is otherwise abusive.

Following an investigation into alleged drug trafficking by the fifth appellant, Dudley CJ made a civil recovery order under Part V of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2015 concerning two Gibraltar properties and a taxi licence: [2023] Gib LR 511. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar dismissed the appellants’ appeal: [2024] Gib LR 251.

The appellants brought an appeal as of right under section 66 of the Gibraltar Constitution Order of 2006. They argued that section 71(1) required evidence of actual unlawful conduct predating the acquisition of each asset and directly connecting that conduct with the asset. At a case management hearing, the Board had to determine whether the proposed grounds raised an arguable question of statutory interpretation or merely challenged concurrent factual findings about the sufficiency of the evidence.

Lord Lloyd-Jones delivered the judgment of the Board.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The proposed grounds did not raise a properly arguable question of law. In substance, they challenged the lower courts’ concurrent assessment that the evidence proved the assets had been obtained through prior drug trafficking.
2. Sections 71(1) and 136(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2015 require the prosecution to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that property was obtained by or in return for unlawful conduct. The statutory wording did not impose an additional requirement for direct evidence identifying particular pre-acquisition drug transactions and directly connecting them with the property. Prior unlawful conduct and the derivation of property may be established by permissible inference from the evidence considered cumulatively. Under section 71(2)(b), it is also unnecessary to prove conduct of a particular kind where the property is shown to derive from one of several kinds of conduct, each of which would be unlawful.
3. The Chief Justice had implicitly found that the fifth appellant was involved in drug trafficking before the acquisition of the three assets. The Court of Appeal had properly held that ample material supported that inference. The lower courts had not relied solely upon the absence of legitimate income or an explanation for the acquisitions. A conclusion reached by inference from primary facts remains a finding of fact.
4. The settled rule in Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508 therefore applied. The Board does not normally undertake a further review of concurrent factual findings unless an arguable special circumstance justifies departure from that practice. The rationale includes prior appellate scrutiny, finality, the limited utility of a second appellate reassessment and the proper use of judicial resources, as explained in Sancus Financial Holdings Ltd v Holm [2022] UKPC 41.
5. An appeal as of right may nevertheless be struck out where it is not properly arguable or is otherwise abusive: Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL v Masri [2011] UKPC 29 and Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago v Sahadath [2022] UKPC 56. No special circumstances were advanced, and there was ample evidence supporting the concurrent findings. The Board accordingly advised His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.

1. Privy Council: In Margot Serra and Ors v Attorney General for Gibraltar [2026] UKPC 28 , the Board dismissed the appeal because it challenged concurrent factual findings, disclosed no arguable special circumstances and was not properly arguable.
2. Court of Appeal of Gibraltar: The court dismissed the appeal against the recovery order: [2024] Gib LR 251. By an order dated 5 September 2025, it formally granted leave under section 4 of the Gibraltar (Appeals to Privy Council) Order 1985 and ordered security for costs.
3. First instance: Dudley CJ made a recovery order under Part V of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2015 against the five appellants in respect of three assets: [2023] Gib LR 511.