Appeals against confiscation orders which had been made in respect of evaded duty on tobacco products smuggled into the United Kingdom for resale. The prosecution had wrongly claimed benefit in the sum of the evaded duty as a pecuniary advantage although (it transpired) the defendants could not in law be liable for it. The defendants had consented to confiscation orders in those sums. The prosecution now argued that because the defendants had consented to the orders, they were bound by them – it was for the defendants to spot the error and having not done so, leave to appeal should be refused.
Held: The submission was forthrightly rejected. Hooper LJ said that the arguments were neither convincing nor attractive: ‘In our view it would be a grave injustice not to grant leave in cases such as the present cases . . on the basis that there has been a previous misconception as to the state of the law, there would be a substantial injustice if we did not grant leave.’
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Openshaw, Sweeney JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 6
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428034