The court had adjourned its proceedings in the absence of the defendant, so as not to fall foul of the requirement that a confiscation inquiry must take place within six months of conviction. The defendant appealed. Held: The court could exercise its common law power to adjourn. The statutory power could only be exercised where … Continue reading Regina v October: CACD 27 Feb 2003
Citations: [1999] EWHC Admin 613 Links: Bailii Statutes: Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1), Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis CA 30-Mar-2000 Although the rules specified that a form should be used … Continue reading Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis: Admn 29 Jun 1999
Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been used, and its absence was not a fatal flaw in the … Continue reading Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis: CA 30 Mar 2000
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure. Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant had not received a fair trial, and the appeal was allowed. The practice of dock identification was … Continue reading Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution): PC 11 May 2005
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements. Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, and must not allow procedural or technical failures to defeat that purpose. Courts should rather look to see … Continue reading Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002
The three defendants were stopped on their way to Malaga. Each carried andpound;7,000 or andpound;6,000. Their explanations were not accepted, and the money was seized under the Act. The magistrates ordered it to be returned, and Customs appealed. Held: It was not proper to aggregate the sums under the Act so as to reach a … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Duffy and Others: QBD 1 Mar 2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the court had made each of 16 defendants liable for the full … Continue reading May, Regina v: HL 14 May 2008
