The claimants said that the confiscation and money-laundering proceedings taken against them had taken too long, with delays of 43 months out of a total of 66 month case attributable to the state.
Held: The delay was too long. The applicants faced issues of the payment of substantial sums with imprisonment by default of payment.
L Garlicki, President, and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G.Bonnelo, L. Mijovic, J.Sikuta, M. Poalelungi and N. Vucinic
[2009] ECHR 28, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 210
Bailii, Times
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Bullen And Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2007
. .
At Court of Appeal – Regina v Soneji; Regina v Bullen CACD 20-Jun-2003
If the court could only postpone confiscation proceedings in exceptional circumstances, it behoved the court before allowing such an adjournment to enquire into the justification, and to record the circumstances which made it exceptional. The . .
Cited – Crowther v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Feb-2005
The applicant complained of the delay by the Customs and Excise in enforcing a confiscation order against him of four years.
Held: The respondent had allowed almost four years to pass after the liability had been incurred without taking any . .
At House of Lords – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Howarth v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Sep-2000
The defendant had been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, but the crown appealed, and two years later, a custodial sentence was substituted.
Held: The delay was a breach of the Convention’s reasonable time requirement under article 6 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Crime
Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.332848