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
When the customs seized cash under the section on the suspicion that it might be the proceeds of drug trafficking, the time limit imposed by the section for the return of the money if continued retention was not authorised, was strict. They had 48 hours within which to obtain authority. Money was seized at 11:30am … Continue reading Walsh v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 4 Jul 2001
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
Citations: [2004] EWHC 953 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.226869
The court was asked, where a defendant fell to be subject to an increased confiscation order under the 1994 Act, where at the time of the original order his assets had been inadequate to meet the sum of benefit found to have been received, but he had later honestly acquired further assets. Held: The court … Continue reading In re Peacock: CA 20 Dec 2010
The defendant had been made subject to a confiscation order. He now sought a certificate of inadequacy. Held: The appeal failed. The procedure for obtaining a certificate of inadequacy related only to circumstances arising following the confiscation order. The Acts provided a proper avenue of appeal against the order itself, and the use of this … Continue reading Mckinsley v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 25 Jul 2006
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
The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the same? The CPS appealed against an order distributing a capital sum to the … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards: CA 27 Jun 2006
The defendant had been convicted of drugs offences, and sentenced under the 1994 Act. The gains he had made exceeded his then assets. Later he acquired further property honestly, and the Court now considered whether those assets could be taken to cover the earlier shortfall, by allowing for them when issuing a certificate to increase … Continue reading Peacock, Re: SC 22 Feb 2012
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
