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.
Judges:
Lord Justice Latham Pitchers, Mr Justice Pitchers Mr Justice Royce
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Crim 2599, Times 03-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 122
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – May, 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
