Ahmed and Qureshi v Regina: CACD 28 Oct 2004

The defendants appealed confiscation orders saying that the court had taken account of their interests in the matrimonial home, and that this would prejudice the interest of others.
Held: Before the amendment to the section, the court had retained a discretion as to whther or not to include the value of a matrimonial home in the calculations. That discretion had disappeared. At that stage no human rights issue arose under article 8. That issue would only arise at a point where a sale of the home was sought to satisfy the order.


Lord Justice Latham Pitchers, Mr Justice Pitchers Mr Justice Royce


[2004] EWCA Crim 2599, Times 03-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 122




Criminal Justice Act 1988 71, European Convention on Human Rights 8


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMay, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219125