Click the case name for better results:

Briggs-Price, Regina v: HL 29 Apr 2009

The applicant appealed against a confiscation order made on the basis of evidence obtained for and given in a trial that he had profited from the importation of cannabis. He had not faced trial on an associated charge, but had been convicted of conspiracy on the importation of heroin. Held: The court need not rely … Continue reading Briggs-Price, Regina v: HL 29 Apr 2009

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: CA 2 Mar 2004

The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court procedings against the claimants, to ascertain their ownership under the … Continue reading Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: CA 2 Mar 2004

Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate: SC 12 Dec 2012

The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject matters were reserved to the UK Parliament under the 1998 Act. Second that the Act … Continue reading Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate: SC 12 Dec 2012

Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford: HL 24 Jan 2002

Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came … Continue reading Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford: HL 24 Jan 2002

Regina v Rezvi: HL 24 Jan 2002

Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant’s human rights. Are applications for confiscation orders criminal proceedings under the Convention, and if so do the assumptions … Continue reading Regina v Rezvi: HL 24 Jan 2002

Hughes and Others v HM Customs and Excise: Admn 21 Dec 2001

The applicants had either been acquitted of drugs trafficking offences, or were third parties. In each case, property had been taken into receivership, and orders had been made for the receivers to take their costs from the assets taken. The proprietors appealed that part of the orders. Held: The receiver is an officer of the … Continue reading Hughes and Others v HM Customs and Excise: Admn 21 Dec 2001

Phillips v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Jul 2001

Having been convicted of drug trafficking, an application was made for a confiscation under the 1994 Act. On the civil balance of proof, and applying the assumptions under the Act, an order was made. The applicant claimed that his article 6 rights had been infringed. The respondent government said the application for an order was … Continue reading Phillips v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Jul 2001

Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Company Ltd v Russell: HL 25 Nov 1999

Where an electricity supplier operated a waste plant to generate electricity, but still, the predominant use of the plant was for waste disposal, the rates were not to be calculated under the industry’s own special rules, but under those for the general rating of business premises. An explanatory note may be referred to as an … Continue reading Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Company Ltd v Russell: HL 25 Nov 1999

Regina v Benjafield, Leal, Rezvi and Milford: CACD 21 Dec 2000

Lord Woolf MR said that where the original proceedings are brought by a public authority, an appeal is part of those proceedings to which section 22(4) applies: ‘In our judgment, where the original proceedings are brought by, or at the instigation of, a public authority, as is the case with a prosecution, an appeal by … Continue reading Regina v Benjafield, Leal, Rezvi and Milford: CACD 21 Dec 2000

Regina v October: CACD 27 Feb 2003

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

Russell v Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd: CA 11 Jun 1998

For a site supplying several services including waste management and lesser electricity generation, the primary purpose governed its rating, and the site did not have the exemptions from commercial rates which were allowed to generator sites. An explanatory note may be referred to as an aid to construction where the statutory instrument to which it … Continue reading Russell v Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd: CA 11 Jun 1998

Regina v Metcalfe and Another: CACD 21 Dec 2004

The defendants appealed confiscation orders for drug trafficking where there had been a finding that of the tablets sold as ecstacy, probably only one tablet in a million was actually a class A controlled drug. Held:The Act required there to be shown that the defendant had ‘received any payment . . . . In connection … Continue reading Regina v Metcalfe and Another: CACD 21 Dec 2004

Webb v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2004

The Court rejected the applicant’s contention that the proceedings involved a ‘criminal charge’ and resulted in the imposition of a penalty or punishment. The forfeiture was preventative and not a penal sanction. Accordingly it was permissible that, pursuant to section 43(3), the standard of proof required to justify forfeiture was that applicable to civil proceedings. … Continue reading Webb v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2004

Butler v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Jun 2002

A substantial confiscation order was made with respect to money seized from the applicant on the ground that customs officers believed the money was directly or indirectly the proceeds of drugs trafficking and/or was intended for use in drug trafficking. The applicant contended that a court, when considering whether to make a forfeiture order in … Continue reading Butler v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Jun 2002

Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 8 Oct 2003

The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. Held: The reasonable time guarantee afforded by Article 6.1 … Continue reading Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 8 Oct 2003

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: HL 17 Oct 2002

The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker. Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were infirm and whose infirmity was not a consequence of their destitution, had not been excluded. Only able bodied … Continue reading Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: HL 17 Oct 2002

Regina v Magro: CACD 8 Jul 2010

Each defendant appealed against confiscation orders made when the sentence imposed was an absolute or conditional discharge. They said that Clarke made such orders unlawful. Held: The decision in Clarke was a difficult limitation on the court’s discretion: ‘there are cases in which the combination of an order for discharge with a confiscation order represents … Continue reading Regina v Magro: CACD 8 Jul 2010

Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005

Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005

Regina v Isleworth Crown Court ex parte Marland: Admn 28 Oct 1997

A previous conviction of the defendant for a drugs related offence was admissible on a civil application for the forfeiture of cash said to represent the proceeds of drug trafficking under the section 43(1). The court observed that the circumstances in which similar fact evidence would be admitted in a criminal trial were closely circumscribed … Continue reading Regina v Isleworth Crown Court ex parte Marland: Admn 28 Oct 1997

Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 30 Jan 2019

These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It was argued that the failure to make payment amounted to a denial of the right to the presumption of … Continue reading Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 30 Jan 2019

Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency: SC 26 Oct 2011

Civil recovery orders had been made against the applicant. He had been accused and acquitted of drug trafficking allegations in Europe, but the judge had been persuaded that he had no proper explanation for the accumulation of his wealth, and had rejected his evidence as unreliable. Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The making of an … Continue reading Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency: SC 26 Oct 2011

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005

Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the decisions had probably been obtained by torture committed by foreign powers, and should not … Continue reading A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005

Regina v Davies: CACD 22 May 2001

The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter. Held: Nevertheless, there had been a breach of section 3 because the court had failed to specify … Continue reading Regina v Davies: CACD 22 May 2001

Ginwalla, Regina v: CACD 8 Dec 2005

[2005] EWCA Crim 3553 Bailii Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office CA 12-Jun-2008 The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies … Continue reading Ginwalla, Regina v: CACD 8 Dec 2005

Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office: CA 12 Jun 2008

The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies in which she claimed a 50% interest. Held: Despite the finding that she had some awareness of her husband’s activities, the claimant was entitled to keep … Continue reading Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office: CA 12 Jun 2008

Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others: CA 11 Apr 2003

The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and proportionate. Held: The present procedure does not involve the criminal courts and the absence of any criminal … Continue reading Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others: CA 11 Apr 2003

Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005

Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005

H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property. Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take … Continue reading H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

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 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

Pickstone v Freemans Plc: HL 30 Jun 1988

The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim failed. Held: The claim was not disbarred in this … Continue reading Pickstone v Freemans Plc: HL 30 Jun 1988

Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

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

Regina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad: HL 23 Jan 1996

The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process. Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an offence alongside the defendant did not necessarily make thereby make a prosecution … Continue reading Regina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad: HL 23 Jan 1996

Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004

Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

Regina v Green: HL 14 May 2008

The appellant had been found to have received criminal proceeds along with another. He appealed against an order making him liable for the full amount. Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s argument did not face the finding that he had been acting jointly with his co-defendants. ‘The committee cannot, however, regard it as disproportionate to … Continue reading Regina v Green: HL 14 May 2008

Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 19 Jun 2009

The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by fax. Held: The service had not been valid. The claimant effectively argued for … Continue reading Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 19 Jun 2009

Regina v Cole: CACD 22 Apr 1998

The defendant having been convicted of drug offences was subject to an application for confiscation of his assets. For various reasons, including the illness of the judge, the decision was not made within the 6 month period. The court held that the . .