Category: Criminal Sentencing

Wood, Regina v (No 2): CACD 2 Apr 2009

The defendant appealed against his sentence to life imprisonment after conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The court faced two questions. Did the case require a sentence of life imprisonment, and also what minimum term should be set. Even for manslaughter a life sentence could be appropriate. The attack had been of extreme ferocity. The sentence was driven by the public protection provisions. In this case the minimum period applicable was thirteen years.
As to the 2003 Act: ‘There is no express statutory link between the guidance in schedule 21 of the 2003 Act and the principles to be applied to sentencing decisions in diminished responsibility manslaughter . . accordingly when the sentencing court is assessing the seriousness of the offence with a view to fixing the minimum term, we can discern no logical reason why, subject to the specific element of reduced culpability inherent in the offence, the assessment of the seriousness of the instant offence of diminished responsibility manslaughter should ignore the guidance. Indeed we suggest that the link is plain’ and ‘Parliament’s intention it seems is clear: crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously and dealt with more severely than before.’
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Aikens, Mr Justice Mackay, Mr Justice Christopher Clarke and Mr Justice Holroyde
[2009] EWCA Crim 651, [2009] Crim LR 543, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 2
Bailii, Times
Criminal Justice Act 2003 269
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Chambers CACD 1983
The court set out the various options for sentencing in cases of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Though a hospital order may be appropriate if recommended by a psychiatric report and justified, where the defendant constituted a . .
See Also – Wood, Regina v (No 1) CACD 20-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, and that this amounted to a diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal succeeded and and a conviction for manslaughter was . .
Cited – Regina v Bryan CACD 2006
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Appleby, Regina v (Attorney-General’s Reference (No 60 of 2009) CACD 18-Dec-2009
applebyCACD2009
Each defendant had been convicted of an assault resulting in a death, but where no weapon had been used and where but for the death the charge would have been assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Held: The decision in Furby, while still . .
Cited – Fort, Regina v CACD 13-Dec-2013
The defendant had been found guilty of manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility. He had been 17, and a technically incorrect sentence of life imprisonment had been passed. There had been conflicting diagnoses of his condition between . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.329553

Qureshi, Regina v, Attorney General’s Reference no 7 of 2008: CACD 22 Apr 2008

The factual nexus between the offender’s conduct in preparation for giving effect to that intention and the future commission of the intended act(s) of terrorism will be a significant factor in determining the ultimate sentence for a s.5 offence
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Pitchford, Dobbs JJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 1054
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2006 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dart and Others v Regina CACD 31-Oct-2014
dart_rCAcD1410
The defendants had been convicted on guilty pleas of offences under the 2006 Act. Dart had been sentenced to a six year term and a five year extended sentence. Other received shorter and longer sentences as appropriate. They now applied for leave to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.330980

Regina v Peacock and Another: CACD 2 Apr 2009

The two defendants appealed against the increase of compensation orders made to reflect assets received properly after their original sentencing.
Stanley Burnton LJ, Treacy, Slade JJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 654
Bailii
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – In re Peacock CA 20-Dec-2010
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 . .
At first instance – Peacock, Re SC 22-Feb-2012
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.329552

Looker, Regina v: CACD 3 Oct 2000

The defendant appealed against her conviction and sentence for robbery saying that she had suffered severe violence from her partner and co-defendeant. She pleaded duress on the basis of fresh medical evidence.
Held: Had the judge known of the history and of its affect on her mind, it would have been taken as proper mitigation. Her sentence was reduced to a total of 7 years, allowing her immediate release.
Rose VP LJ, Astill, Richards JJ
[2000] EWCA Crim 103
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.331141

Regina v Chambers: CACD 1983

The court set out the various options for sentencing in cases of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Though a hospital order may be appropriate if recommended by a psychiatric report and justified, where the defendant constituted a danger to the public for an unpredictable time, the right sentence would probably be life imprisonment. If the defendant’s responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility was minimal, then a lenient course would be open, but the length of any determinate sentence depended on the judge’s assessment of the degree of the defendant’s responsibility and his assessment of the time for which the accused would continue to represent a danger to the public.
[1983] CAR (S) 190
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wood, Regina v (No 2) CACD 2-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his sentence to life imprisonment after conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The court faced two questions. Did the case require a sentence of life imprisonment, and also . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.331090

Regina v Smith: CACD 17 Feb 2009

Thomas LJ discussed the sentence to be imposed on default by the defendant in payment of a sum due under a confiscation order: ‘We turn therefore to the authorities which have been put before us in relation to the short issue. They are R v Szrajber (1994) 15 Cr.App.R (S) 821 , R v French (1996) 16 Cr.App.R (S) 841 , R v Qema [2006] EWCA Crim. 2806 , R v Howard [2007] EWCA Crim. 1489 and R v Liscott [2007] EWCA Crim. 1706 . It is clear from those authorities that the court has a discretion up to the maximum period in the band. It would, taking as an example the band we are concerned with, namely the band of between andpound;250,000 and andpound;1 million, at a sentence between the maximum amount and the top of the previous band, namely three years. In fixing the precise length of the sentence, the court has to consider all the circumstances and is not bound to follow an arithmetical approach. In this case, as the sum is within a few thousand of the midway point, that clearly indicates that it is not right to fix the sentence merely in the midway point, namely as four years. The court must have particular regard to the purpose of the imposition of a period of imprisonment in default, that is to say to secure payment of the amount that the court has ordered to be paid. This is because the overriding purpose of the legislation is to ensure that those who benefit from such crimes do not retain those benefits. The power to imprison in default is given to ensuring or obtaining as far as possible the co-operation of the defendant in complying with the order. It is to make clear to him that he has nothing to gain by non-compliance. It is particularly important to have regard to the judgment of Hobhouse LJ in French to that effect at page 844 of the report. Although a court must take into account intransigence, it seems to us the court must also take into account, in a case where the order is not for the maximum, what that maximum is.’
and ‘We would add one further point. There is some suggestion that the judge should have had regard to the overall totality of the sentence of 13 years imposed for the substantive offence and the period to be imposed in default. That argument was not pursued before us as it was accepted that it was wrong in principle to take into account in fixing the default term the previous sentence. We consider that that concession was rightly made, as the purpose of the sentence of imprisonment was to punish him for his drug dealing; the purpose of the sentence for confiscation was the purpose we have set out, namely to ensure compliance with the order of confiscation. The sentences have completely different purposes and therefore it was right in principle to concede that an argument on totality could not properly be advanced.’
Thomas LJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 344
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v French CACD 1996
Hobhouse J discussed the sentencing in default of payment of a sum due under a confiscation order: ‘It is to be borne in mind that there is a scheme under the Act whereby orders may be reviewed and whereby the period in default falls to be reduced . .
Cited – Regina v Szrajber CACD 1994
Latham J discussed the periods of sentence to be imposed in default of payment of a confiscation order: ‘The use of the words ‘the maximum period’ [in the statute] makes it quite plain that it was intended that these should indeed be maximum . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pigott v Regina CACD 9-Nov-2009
The defendant appealed against a substantial confiscation order after his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the judge had been biased or had shown the appearance of bias against him. He had given some assistance to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.317861

Johnson (RT) v Regina; Nnaji v Regina: CACD 17 Mar 2009

The court considered the difficulties arising in trying under section 240 to calculate the credit to be given for time spent in custody awaiting trial, and put forward a suggested formulation.
Thomas LJ, Penry-Davey J, Radford HHJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 468, [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 107, [2009] Crim LR 541
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 240
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Leacock and Others, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2013
leacock_rCACD1113
The defendants sought leave to appeal against their sentences, saying that the time served calculations had not included time spent subject to curfew and otherwise.
Held: ‘if a prisoner is serving a sentence for another offence at the time on . .
Cited – Thorsby and Others v Regina CACD 20-Jan-2015
These several applications raised a single ground of appeal namely that the sentencing court failed to give credit under section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as amended, for one half of the time spent by the offender on qualifying curfew . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.321832

Regina v Darwin and Darwin: CACD 1 Apr 2009

The defendants appealed against sentences in excess of six years for fraud. The husband had simulated his death, and the wife claimed under insurance policies before they created a new life abroad. They had not told their children of the deception.
Held: The court had been correct to take account of the devastating results of the deception even on those who had not been financially affected. The court is concerned at both the culpability of the offender and the effect of the crime.
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Wyn Williams
[2009] EWCA Crim 860
Times, Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.332833

Regina v Edwards: CACD 12 Oct 2006

Application for leave to appeal against sentence to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of five years, having pleaded guilty to several offences including some for serious violence.
Held: ‘This is just the sort of case for which an IPP sentence was designed and is best suited. Just precisely so that an assessment can be made of his continuing dangerousness, or otherwise, at a time when his possible release into the community is closer in time. ‘ The judge had however erred in technical aspects of the pronouncement of the sentence. Also the totality remained severe: ‘for the totality of this offending, after contested trials a total sentence of 12 years would have been a justified starting point, and after early pleas a total of some eight years. That is the basis for the decision of this court to reduce the minimum period from five years’
Smith DBE LJ, David Clarke , Chapman HHJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 3362
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.278943

Simon Lord Lovat v Kenneth Mackenzie, Factor and Assignee of The Creditors of Alexander Mackenzie Late of Fraserdale: HL 4 Apr 1719

Liferent Escheat – An act of parliament, at the time of the rebellion 1715, having ordained persons summoned by the crown to appear before the Court of Justiciary, and find caution for their good behaviour under the pain of life-rent escheat, andc.; and the life-rent escheat of a person neglecting to appear, being adjudged and granted to a donatory; though there was no previous declarator, the rents are ordered to be paid to the donatory; but the creditor who were real at the time of the falling of the escheat are ordered to be charged on the estate in due course of law.
Construction of the acts of parliament 1 G. 1. c. 20. and 50. and 4 G. 1. c. 8. The act 1 G. l. c. 50. having enacted that all persons who should be attainted of high treason, before the 24th of June 1718, should forfeit all estates which they were in possession of on the 24th of June 1715, or afterwards, to his majesty; and declared that every grant of such estate, or any part thereof made by his majesty, should be void: Under the prior act 1 G. 1. c. 20. a person’s life-rent escheat being adjudged on the 13th of October 1715, is gifted away by the crown; he was afterwards attainted of high treason before the 24th of June 1718; but the gift of escheat is found to subsist, notwithstanding the provisos of the last mentioned act.
The vesting act 4 G. 1. c. 8. having declared the judgments of any court, relative to any claim out of a forfeited estate made since 24th June 1715, to be void; but containing a proviso in favour of the gift of escheat before-mentioned, the judgment given in this case was not voided by said act.
[1719] UKHL Robertson – 241, (1719) Robertson 241
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.553534

Seed, Regina v: CACD 30 Jul 2021

Appeal against that part of a confiscation order which assessed the ‘available amount’ and recoverable benefit for the appellant, in the sum of pounds 5,997,684.93. Mr Seed was convicted in 2019 of being one of the men involved in 2015 with the burglary of gold, jewellery and other precious items from safety deposit boxes in vaults in Hatton Gardens.
Lord Justice Dingemans
[2021] EWCA Crim 1198
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666333

The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Thorpe: Admn 18 Nov 2015

Appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Ealing Magistrates Court to impose a football banning order under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 with a limitation which the Appellant says is unlawful.
Edis J
[2015] EWHC 3339 (Admin)
Bailii
Football Spectators Act 1989 14B
England and Wales

Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.554983

Regina v Alfonso; Regina v Sajid; Regina v Andrews: CACD 9 Sep 2004

The defendants appealed sentences for supplying drugs. They were first time defendants, addicts caught selling drugs to police officers, and with no established stocks of drugs for sale.
Held: A short prison sentence was appropriate. A drug treatment and testing might be appropriate for some defendants. Whilst none of the defendants fell precisely within the group identified, the sentences were adjusted.
Rose LJ, Owen J, Mitting J
Times 14-Oct-2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Twisse CACD 7-Nov-2000
There was no need for the Court of Appeal to notify the Sentencing Advisory Panel under the Act unless it intended to give sentencing guidelines across a wide field. A proper sentence for a defendant shown to be a dealer in class A drugs at street . .
Cited – Regina v McKeown and Others (Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 13 to 18 of 2004) CACD 7-Jul-2004
The Attorney-General appealed sentences imposed on the defendants for supplying heroin.
Held: The offences involved all the aggravating factors for such cases. Drugs had been sold near schools though children not specifically targeted. The . .
Approved – Regina v Dhajit CACD 1999
Sentencing guidelines for supply of drugs. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 64 of 2003) CACD 20-Nov-2003
The attorney general sought re-assessment of the defendant’s sentence of a Drug treatment and testing order.
Held: When considering a Drug Treatment and Testing Order, the court should consider: the realistic possibility that such orders may . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.218844

Guraj, Regina v: SC 14 Dec 2016

The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed against the defendant’s successful appeal from the confiscation order as made.
Held: The judge had applied the correct test, and: ‘In this case it is not suggested that any unfairness at all has befallen the defendant in consequence of the irregularities which occurred. There was no obstacle to the making of the confiscation order, and it ought to have been made. The Crown’s appeal must be allowed and the order restored.’
Confiscation orders are enforced by the magistrates as if they were Crown Court fines.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Sir Declan Morgan
[2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, UKSC 2015/0152
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 16, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Regina v Keith Ross CACD 13-Mar-2001
The defendant having pleaded guilty to a serious drugs offence now appealed a confiscation order. He claimed that he had been misled that the prosecution would not request an inquiry for this purpose, and during the course of the hearing the . .
Cited – Palmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
Cited – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
Appeal from – Guraj, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his plea to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. The Crown had served its statement under section 16 of the 2002 Act, but it was 14 months’ late. . .
Cited – Regina v Donohoe CACD 28-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against the making of a confiscation order, saying that the court had erred in the procedure for forfeiting drugs.
Held: The appeal failed. The section contained an express prohibition against making both a forfeiture . .
Cited – Regina v Iqbal; Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (RCPO) v Iqbal CACD 3-Feb-2010
The RCPO appealed against refusal of permission to continue their application for a confiscation order. The defendant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs, but said that the application was now out of time.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Neish CACD 6-May-2010
The defendant faced confiscation proceedings. The judge gave instructions to the listing office to give a later date for the hearing. The defendant said that the delay took the case out of the court’s jurisdiction to make an order.
Held: The . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – Regina v Johal CACD 19-Apr-2013
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his conviction for possession of a Class B controlled drug. There had been considerable delays in the completion of the process, and it had exceeded the two year limit. The appellant argued . .

Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.572397

Bukhari, Regina v: CACD 13 Apr 2018

Appeal from sentences for offences of false imprisonment, threat to kill, and common assault, as to 32 months for the offence of false imprisonment with concurrent sentences of 18 months and 4 months respectively for the offences of threats to kill and common assault. The total sentence, after discount for his pleas at the first opportunity, was thus 32 months.
Gross LJ, Whipple, May DdBE JJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 916
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.609735

Stapleton, Regina v: CACD 15 May 2008

The appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of furnishing false information, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. She was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the 2002 Act, with a view to a confiscation order being considered. She had made claims for housing benefit in the amount of pounds 15,946 between July 2002 and August 2006. A confiscation order was made under the 2002 Act. It was argued that the straightforward reading of the transitional provisions meant that there was no power to make an order under the 2002 Act.
Latham LJ VP CACD
[2008] EWCA Crim 1308, [2008] Crim LR 813, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Referred to – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .

Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.341697

Aslam, Regina v: CACD 22 Oct 2004

The appellant had pleaded guilty to a number of offences of dishonesty and asked for a number of others to be taken into consideration. One of the offences to which he had pleaded guilty and one of those which he had asked to be taken into consideration had occurred before the coming into force of the 1995 Act. On this account, it was argued on his behalf that the court had no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under the 1995 legislation.
Held: The argument was rejected.
Bean J said: ‘The legislative purpose of section 16(5), as it seems to us, was to prevent the Crown from dividing convictions against a defendant in one set of proceedings into pre- and post-November 1, 1995 matters and then taking confiscation proceedings (concurrently or consecutively) under both statutes. So, if at the time the judge is asked to make a confiscation order under the 1995 Act on a number of counts there remains a pre-commencement count on which the Crown is seeking, or could still seek, a confiscation order under the 1988 Act as amended in 1993, there is no jurisdiction to make an order under the 1995 Act. However, if the pre-commencement count is one which could not be the basis of confiscation proceedings, there is no obstacle to using the 1995 Act regime. Similarly, if (as in this case) the Crown has expressly abandoned any reliance on the pre-commencement count for the purposes of a confiscation order, the fact that it could have sought such an order in respect of that count seems to us entirely immaterial. In such a case also, in our judgment, there is no obstacle to using in the 1995 Act regime in respect of the post-commencement counts. We do not understand Simpson to require a contrary conclusion.’
Bean J
[2004] EWCA Crim 2801, [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 116
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 16(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .

Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.226784

Regina v Knights and Another: HL 21 Jul 2005

The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the confiscation order, the appellants saying that the date to which the determination had not been fixed, and that this failure to comply with the rules made the order ineffective.
Held: Lord Brown said: ‘When postponing the determination of one or other of the critical questions for decision in confiscation proceedings, the judge is required to specify the particular period of the postponement: he cannot simply adjourn the proceedings generally. I do not accept, however, that he is bound to specify the very date when the substantive hearing is to begin, still less the date when it is to end (the date, in other words, when the actual order, assuming there is to be one, will be made). To my mind it is sufficient, when postponing the proceedings, to give directions for the service of statements and to specify a date when the proceedings are next to be listed, whether for disposal, or for such further directions as may be needed, or to fix a final hearing date. Section 72A(2) expressly envisages that ‘more than one postponement may be made’. ‘
Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] UKHL 50, Times 21-Jul-2005, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330
Bailii, House of Lords
Criminal Justice Act 1988 72A, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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 . .
Appeal from – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Regina v Copeland CACD 2002
The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used . .
Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 2002
In confiscation proceedings, the trial judge had set a timetable for the service of statements but no further hearing date.
Held: The failure to specify a period for the postponement was fatal to the confiscation order subsequently made. . .
Cited – Ruddick v Regina CACD 16-Apr-2003
A judge was required to take into account a confiscation order before making an order for costs, but that need not invalidate the orders. Was a financial order made before the forfeiture process was complete void or merely a ground for appeal? The . .
Cited – Regina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002
The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an . .
Wrongly decided – Palmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Guraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .
Cited – Guraj, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his plea to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. The Crown had served its statement under section 16 of the 2002 Act, but it was 14 months’ late. . .
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.228954

Lazarus, Regina v: CACD 24 Aug 2004

[2004] EWCA Crim 2297, [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 552
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Green HL 14-May-2008
The appellant had been found to have received criminal proceeds along with another. He appealed against an order making him liable for the full amount.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s argument did not face the finding that he had been . .
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.270035

Bukhari, Regina v: CACD 18 Nov 2008

Appeal from confiscation order – order made under Act not applicable at the time of commission of the offences.
Held: The variation of what was originally an unlawful order was itself unlawful. New confiscation order made under the applicable Act.
[2008] EWCA Crim 2915, [2009] Crim LR 300, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 18, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 198
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.396444

Simpson v Regina: CACD 23 May 2003

The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the fact that the notice served by the prosecution was not in the form required by section 72, CJA 1988 mean that the court had no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order?
Held: The court had sat with 5 judges to consider the decision in Sekhon. The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. The law was misunderstood and misapplied in Palmer. The court applied Sekhon and found that it had jurisdiction to make the order. Having considered the evidence put before the judge, his conclusions as to the resources available to the defendant were not to be criticised. The provisions concerning postponement were directory only.
Lord Woolf CJ: ‘The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. They are of considerable importance because of their role in achieving the appropriate degree of certainty as to the law. This is an important requirement of any system of justice. The principles should not, however, be regarded as so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs. ‘
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mitchell Mrs Justice Hallett Mr Justice Pitchers Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
[2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71, Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 16(5)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Disapproved – Palmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
Cited – In re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd CA 1990
The court gave guidelines for the periods of disqualification to be applied for company directors under the Act. The maximum period of ten years should be reserved for only the most serious of cases. Periods of two to five years should apply to . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Mirehouse v Rennell 1833
Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: ‘Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Regina v Merriman CACD 1973
Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the . .
Cited – Regina v Gould CACD 1968
Diplock LJ said: ‘In its criminal jurisdiction, which it has inherited from the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court of Appeal does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If upon due consideration . .
Cited – Critchell v Lambeth Borough Council CA 1957
The court considered conflicting interpretations of Acts: It would be wrong for the court to introduce into a matter already in all conscience complicated enough, and made complicated by imperfections of drafting, refinements and narrow distinctions . .
Cited – Regina v Copeland CACD 2002
The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used . .
Cited – Regina v Newsome CACD 1970
The court was dealing with the question of a guideline judgment on sentence. There was good reason to adopt a flexible approach. The discretion to depart from a previous precedent was not to be exercised lightly and we endorse that restrictive and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v R (Sentencing: Extended licences) CACD 25-Jul-2003
The imposition of an extended period of licence in respect of offences committed before 1992 did not infringe the defendant’s human rights. The defendant had been convicted of offences from 1976 and 1982. The commencement date for the 1991 Act was 1 . .
Cited – Goodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .
Cited – 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 – Gazette Media Company Ltd. and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Teeside Crown Court CACD 26-Jul-2005
The claimants appealed an order restricting their reporting of a criminal case so as to identify the defendant.
Held: Orders preventing the naming of a defendant in order to protect associated children are unlikely to enhance any child . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited – In re Hill and Others (Restraint Order) CACD 20-Dec-2005
The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect.
Held: The . .
Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.182379

McCool, Regina v: SC 2 May 2018

The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was that some offence predated the commencement of the 2003 Act. They argued that the wording of the commencement order meant that if any offence predated the commencement, a confiscation was unavailable for any.
Held: (Lords Reed and Mance dissenting) The appeal failed. The interpretation proposed would lead to tactical charging. It could not have been intended that a number of post-2003 offences should be removed from the scope of the 2002 Act simply because the defendant was convicted of an associated offence before the commencement date. The statute should be read to avoid an absurd result, for current offences being dealt with under a system no longer in force. No unfairness would arise by the result proposed by the Crown.
Lord Reed dissented saying that the language of the provisions could not be interpreted as excluding offences which the prosecution had elected to leave out of account for the purpose of assessing the benefit obtained by the defendant.
Lord Mance (Deputy President), Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 23, [2018] 1 WLR 2431, [2018] 3 All ER 849, [2018] Crim LR 766, [2018] 1 WLR 2431, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 407, UKSC 2016/0132
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 23 Nov 2017 am Video, SC 23 Nov 2017 pm Video
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Commencement No 5, Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendments) Order 2003
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal from – McCool and Another, Regina v CANI 22-May-2015
Renewed applications for leave to appeal by two applicants who were convicted, following pleas of guilty, of offences of false accounting. They challenged the use of the Commencement order for the 2002 Act as it applied to offences coming into force . .
Cited – Regina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
Mentioned – Gumbs v Attorney General Of Anguilla PC 7-Jul-2009
Anguilla – whether there is a public right of way, and, if there is, the extent of that way, over a parcel of land at Little Bay, Anguilla. . .
Cited – Regina v Ahmed CACD 8-Feb-2000
The appellant had pleaded guilty to three offences of conspiracy to defraud by inflating invoices for goods supplied. The first of those offences took place at a time between January 1995 and October 2006; the second between January 1995 and June . .
Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .
Cited – Martin v Regina CACD 30-Oct-2001
It would not be appropriate except in exceptional circumstances ‘which would make the evidence especially probative’ to take into account, when deciding whether excessive force was used in self-defence, that the defendant was suffering from a . .
Cited – Regina v Brown and others CACD 7-Dec-2001
The appellants were accused of involvement in a large conspiracy to defraud the Customs of import duties on alcohol. The main conspirator had committed the offences whilst in prison for similar offences. The parties appealed sentence and the . .
Cited – Martin v Regina CACD 30-Oct-2001
The defendant had shot a burglar who had entered his isolated home at night. He claimed self defence, but the burglar appeared to have been shot as he retreated. A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he . .
Cited – Aslam, Regina v CACD 22-Oct-2004
The appellant had pleaded guilty to a number of offences of dishonesty and asked for a number of others to be taken into consideration. One of the offences to which he had pleaded guilty and one of those which he had asked to be taken into . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Cited – Stapleton, Regina v CACD 15-May-2008
The appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of furnishing false information, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. She was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the 2002 Act, with a view to a confiscation order being considered. She had made . .
Cited – 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 – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – Lazarus, Regina v CACD 24-Aug-2004
. .
Cited – Bukhari, Regina v CACD 13-Apr-2018
Appeal from sentences for offences of false imprisonment, threat to kill, and common assault, as to 32 months for the offence of false imprisonment with concurrent sentences of 18 months and 4 months respectively for the offences of threats to kill . .
Cited – Guraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .
Cited – Bukhari, Regina v CACD 18-Nov-2008
Appeal from confiscation order – order made under Act not applicable at the time of commission of the offences.
Held: The variation of what was originally an unlawful order was itself unlawful. New confiscation order made under the applicable . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.615571

Regina v Ahmed: CACD 8 Feb 2000

The appellant had pleaded guilty to three offences of conspiracy to defraud by inflating invoices for goods supplied. The first of those offences took place at a time between January 1995 and October 2006; the second between January 1995 and June 2007; and the third between January 1997 and 30 November 2007. Section 16(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, which was the statute under which the confiscation orders were sought, provided: ‘Section 1 . . shall not apply in the case of any proceedings against any person where that person is convicted in those proceedings of an offence which was committed before the commencement of that section.’
The section came into force on 1 November 1995. In each of the otter cases there were overt acts committed in pursuance of the existence of the relevant conspiracy both before and after that date, 1st November 1995. Counsel’s submission was that as the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 2 ran from 1st January 1995, the offences in Counts 1 and 2 were being committed both before and after 1st November 1995. That being so in these proceedings the appellant was ‘convicted . . of an offence which was committed before [1st November 1995]’. It followed that the judge had the discretion to make an order in the full agreed sum of pounds 40,000 or a lesser sum or none at all.’
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Goldring and Sir Charles McCullough
Unreported, 8 February 2000, 9905818X4
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.182380

Regina v Brown and others: CACD 7 Dec 2001

The appellants were accused of involvement in a large conspiracy to defraud the Customs of import duties on alcohol. The main conspirator had committed the offences whilst in prison for similar offences. The parties appealed sentence and the confiscation orders made against them.
Held: The particular circumstances surrounding the sentence of the main conspirator made his sentence of 8 years (reduced from 9) not appropriate as a benchmark for the rest. Where there was an element of double jeopardy, that was to be allowed for. Where there had been a trial, it was for the judge himself to assess the degree of involvement of a defendant. Here, although the offence of conspiracy was a continuing one, for these purposes it took place when the agreement was first made. Accordingly the court had no power to make a confiscation order under laws which were put in place afterwards. In the absence of an order postponing the making of a confiscation order, the jurisdiction was lost.
Otherwise: Regina v Martin
Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Grigson, And, His Honour Judge Zucker Qc
[2001] EWCA Crim 2761, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 74
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.166983

Regina v Ingram: CACD 16 Dec 1997

The defendant appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving. Penalty points imposed on his licence at the same time as imprisonment were expunged immediately. He had appeared to attempt to flee the police in a car chase.
Held: The sentence of four months imprisonment was entirely justified.
Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Mr Justice Harrison, And The Recorder Of Bristol, (Acting As A Judge Of The Cacd)
[1997] EWCA Crim 3337
England and Wales

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.152792

Attorney General’s Reference Nos. 92 and 68 Of 2007: CACD 22 Oct 2007

The AG sought to refer as too lenient sentences imposed upon two defendants each convicted of the unlawful supply of heroin.
Held: The offender had already made a favourable impression upon medical staff during a drug rehabilitation requirement assessment period both as to his motivation and as to his successful start to the programme. There had been a lengthy delay between arrest and sentence. The sentencing judge had taken a specific course conscious that it was exceptional.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Davis, Simon JJ
[2007] EWCA Crim 2634
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference Nos 61, 62 and 63 of 2011 CACD 27-Oct-2011
ag61_2011CACD2011
The AG appealed against sentences imposed on the several defendants for supplying Class A controlled drugs. The sentencer had applied recently proposed guidelines, sentencing them as having low grade involvement in the supply of high quality drugs. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.262884

Regina v Baker: CACD 15 Dec 1998

The court faced an appeal against a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment on pleas of guilty to 6 indecent assaults. The judge imposed 2 years’ imprisonment consecutive on each Count totalling 12 years.
Held: The judge was purporting to exercise his powers under Section 2(2)(b). If the section was properly invoked the total sentence was justified even on guilty pleas. The court was however troubled as to whether the reference to the sentence ‘not exceeding the permitted maximum’ in the section rendered the 12 year sentence unlawful. The court concluded that the section did not affect the principle that sentences for separate offences may in appropriate circumstances be consecutive or the principle that consecutive sentences may in total, and subject to the duty of ensuring that the totality of the consecutive sentences is not excessive, exceed the statutory maximum. ‘The section . . is not concerned with and does not have the effect of eliminating or limiting the power of the Court to order sentences to run consecutively . . .The expression ‘maximum permitted sentence’ applies to the sentence for an individual offence. Provided that does not exceed 10 years upon an exercise of the power (to impose a longer than commensurate sentence) there is no obstacle to aggregating other individual sentences which do not exceed that maximum. Moreover there is no obstacle to exercising the power (to impose a longer than commensurate sentence) in an individual sentence imposed consecutively to another sentence on which that power has been exercised.’ The court substituted terms of 6 years imprisonment as longer than commensurate sentences. The sentences on Counts 1 to 3 were ordered to run concurrently with each other; the sentences on Counts 4 to 6 were also ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts 1 to 3. The 12-year total thus remained.
Pill LJ
98/0959/Z3, Unreported, 15 December 1998
Criminal Justice Act 1991 2(2)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Backwell CACD 18-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed against a sentence for violent sexual assaults. Charges of rape were left on the file. He had toured the streets of Torquay selecting women who, for drink or otherwise, would be less able to resist. The judge thought a proper . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.187986

Bailey, Regina v: CACD 15 Nov 2007

The defendant appealed against a confiscation order.
Laws LJ, MacKay, Lloyd Jones JJ
[2007] EWCA Crim 2873
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.262886

Revenue and Customs v Martin: UTTC 19 May 2020

MONEY LAUNDERING – penalty – Regulation 33 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 – whether prohibition in that Regulation applies only to businesses in existence when register established and still unregistered six months later – no – appeal allowed
[2020] UKUT 159 (TCC)
Bailii
Money Laundering Regulations 2007
England and Wales

Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.652553

Regina v Normanton: CACD 10 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed his sentence for assault.
Held: The was an incident of road rage. There were considerable mitigating factors, and the sentence would be reduced to six weeks, but immediate imprisonment will normally follow an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in the context of a road rage confrontation.
Rose LJ, Gross, Pitchers JJ
Times 21-Jul-2003
Offences Against the Persons Act 1892
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.184726

Regina v Burgess: CACD 28 Nov 2000

Where the court considered making a deprivation order, it may be inevitable that the effect will be different on different defendants. Although the court might want to treat defendants equally, that could only be taken so far. It must frequently arise that there are differences between defendants in financial circumstances, and the provision in this case by one defendant of a vehicle used by all defendants created an imbalance. A deprivation order would lead to an imbalance, but it remained a fair and proper decision, despite the existence of a joint venture.
Times 28-Nov-2000
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 43
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.88397

Regina v Adams, T: CACD 9 Apr 2008

Latham VP LJ, Penry-Davey, Foskett JJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 914, [2008] 4 All ER 574, [2009] 1 WLR 301
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.267389

Regina v Compassi: CACD 1987

The court considered the test in deciding whether to make a recommendation for deportation of a defendant on completion of his jail sentence: ‘So far as this case is concerned this appellant has no previous convictions, and the question which has to be asked in relation to whether or not it is appropriate that a deportation order should be made is whether or not he constitutes a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy’.
[1987] 9 Crim App R (S) 70
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Pierre Bouchereau ECJ 27-Oct-1977
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.415077

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 19 Jul 2011

The court considered the sentence for contempt of court by the defendant newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) in their online publication of a photograph which had not been cropped in the way required to avoid the prejudice complained of.
Held: Though in one case the photograph had been removed after only a few hours, each defendant was ordered to pay a fine of pounds 15,000 and the A-G’s costs summarily assessed.
Moses LJ, Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General v ITV Central Ltd Admn 15-Jul-2008
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.441965

Larcombe, Regina v: CACD 10 Oct 2008

After being convicted of two offences of sexual assault on a male contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment.
Held: It was perfectly open to the judge, while acting within the guidelines, to conclude that the appropriate starting point was significantly beyond the 12 months custody listed for the second of the two offences. We agree with the finding of the judge that the nature and repetition of offending completely changed the complexion of seriousness confined to one or other offence in isolation. Accordingly, it required a substantial sentence of imprisonment. There was no mitigation available. The appellant stood his trial and persisted in his denial. The upper limit of the sentence in this case was two years’ imprisonment.
[2008] EWCA Crim 2310
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.343045

Khan v Regina: CACD 11 Mar 2009

The defendant had been sentenced to three years for acts tending to pervert the course of justice. The court was asked as to the extent to which a judge may take into account in sentence matters of evidence in a trial which tend to aggravate the offence but which comprise behaviour which could have been (but was not) charged as a separate offence and which is disputed by the offender.
[2009] EWCA Crim 389, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 1, [2009] Crim LR 744
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.396420

Regina v Ascroft: CACD 2003

[2003] EWCA Crim 2365, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 56
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ahmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.544634

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 14 of 2003) Regina v Sheppard: CACD 9 Apr 2003

The Attorney-General sought to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal as too lenient.
Held: The Act introduced a new power, but provided several protections. The Attorney-General had himself to consider the sentence to be too lenient, and he exercised a discretion, not a duty, to refer the case. The Court of Appeal was to be asked to give leave to refer the case, and itself consider whether it was too lenient. The Court of Appeal’s leave should not be considered to be automatic. Here the reference was misconceived, mentioning elements which should not have been included, and excluding matters of mitigation which should have been mentioned. The Attorney-General had exercised his discretion under a mistake. Leave was refused.
Kay LJ, Goldring, Cox JJ
Times 18-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003
Criminal Law Act 1977 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 10 of 2003); Regina v Jutue CACD 14-May-2003
A case had been referred to the court, but the court was unhappy about the state of the reference. It was essential that reference should be seen by counsel in the case so that he could check it. It should not be based upon the evidence as it stood . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.180848

Regina v Nedrick: CACD 10 Jul 1986

The appellant poured paraffin through the front door of a house and set it alight. In the fire a child died.
Held: Lord Lane CJ considered whether a simple direction to the jury on intent to either kill or to do serious bodily harm was adequate and said: ‘Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.’
Lord Lane CJ
[1986] 1 WLR 1025, (1986) 8 Cr App R(S), [1986] EWCA Crim 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Matthews; Regina v Alleyne CACD 7-Feb-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, complaining that the judge had failed properly to direct the jury as to the required likelhood of death which might result from the act complained of, and turned a rule of evidence into a rule of . .
Confirmed – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Cited – Regina v Woollin CACD 12-Aug-1996
The defendant threw his child in anger onto a hard surface. He argued that he did not intend the consequences, the death of the child.
Held: A direction from the judge as to the making of an inference of intent from the consequences of an act, . .
Cited – Jones, Regina v CACD 30-Nov-2005
The court considered appeals against tarriffs set for defendants convicted of murder in the light of the schedules to the 2003 Act.
Held: ‘The guidance given by Schedule 21 is provided to assist the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.179313

Popoola v Regina: CACD 11 Jun 2021

The principal issue in this appeal against sentence is whether the judge, in determining the appropriate minimum term to be served under a life sentence imposed for murder, gave sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant was aged only 18 years 9 months at the time of the offence.
Lord Justice Holroyde
[2021] EWCA Crim 842
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.663415

Muhammed, Regina v: CACD 28 May 2021

Appeal against convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. There are two grounds of appeal. The first centres on the chain of causation between the appellant’s driving and death or serious injury. The second relates to the condition or use of seat belts in the appellant’s car.
Macur LJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 802
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.663408

I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Jun 2002

The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been released. The respondent argued that it was seeking to make arrangements for his deportation. He argued that it was clear that he would not be deported within any reasonable time, and that his continued detention breached his rights.
Held: The appellant could have secured his own release by agreeing to a voluntary repatriation. The phrase ‘reasonable time’ in the Tan Te Lam case must include time already spent awaiting deportation. The possibility of his re-offending was part of the circumstances and to be taken into account. The appellant’s renewed application for asylum was critical. Even so, the reasonable time had already been exhausted by the time the judge’s decision was made, and the appellant was to be released. (Mummery dissenting)
Simon-Brown LJ said: ‘The likelihood or otherwise of the detainee absconding and/or re-offending seems to me to be an obviously relevant circumstance. If, say, one could predict with a high degree of certainty that, upon release, the detainee would commit murder or mayhem, that to my mind would justify allowing the Secretary of State a substantially longer period of time within which to arrange the detainee’s removal abroad.’
However: ‘Given . . that the appellant had by then been in administrative detention for nearly 16 months and that the Secretary of State could establish no more than a hope of being able to remove him forcibly by the summer, substantially more in the way of a risk of re-offending (and not merely a risk of absconding) than exists here would in my judgment be necessary to have justified continuing his detention for an indeterminate further period. .) In short, I came to the clear conclusion that . . it was simply not justifiable to detain the appellant a day longer; the legal limits of the power had by then been exhausted.’
Dyson LJ summarised the law: ‘There is no dispute as to the principles that fall to be applied in the present case. They were stated by Woolf J in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704, 706D . . This statement was approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Tan Te Lam v Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97, 111A-D . . In my judgment, [counsel] correctly submitted that the following four principles emerge:
(i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose;
(ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
(iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention;
(iv) The Secretary of State should act with the reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.
Principles (ii) and (iii) are conceptually distinct. Principle (ii) is that the Secretary of State may not lawfully detain a person ‘pending removal’ for longer than a reasonable period. Once a reasonable period has expired, the detained person must be released. But there may be circumstances where, although a reasonable period has not yet expired, it becomes clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to deport the detained person within a reasonable period. In that event, principle (iii) applies. Thus, once it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect the deportation within a reasonable period, the detention becomes unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired.’
Mummery LJ (dissenting) said: ‘As the appellant does not want to go back to Afghanistan, refuses to co-operate with the authorities to return voluntarily and has so far had no success in his asylum claims, there are, in my judgment, reasonable grounds for believing that, given the chance, he will probably seek to frustrate attempts to remove him under the deportation order before it is possible to carry it into effect. So, there is a real risk that, if he is now released from his present detention under paragraph 2(3) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, he will probably abscond and never return to Afghanistan.
. . In my judgment, the Secretary of State has supplied a valid justification of the detention to date and of the need for it to continue for a longer period. In addition to the risk that the appellant will probably abscond if he is now released, the Secretary of State reasonably relies on continuing efforts on his behalf to operate the machinery for the appellant’s removal.’
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Dyson
[2003] INLR 196, [2002] EWCA Civ 888
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 5, Immigration Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 1995
The applicant was an Iraqi who had been granted asylum in Germany. On entering England as a visitor he was found in possession of opium and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation. He was served with a deportation . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Regina on the Application of Khadir CA 3-Apr-2003
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
Cited – Khadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Jun-2005
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – SK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2008
Immigration detention proper after prison release
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that he had unlawfully detained the applicant. The applicant had been detained on release from prison pending his return to Zimbabwe as recommended by the sentencing judge under section 6 of the 1971 . .
Cited – Rostami, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 7-Aug-2009
The claimant had been detained for nearly three years while his application for asylum was determined. He sought judicial review, saying that the detention was unlawful. Whilst in detention he had self harmed and said: ‘I will stay in detention for . .
Cited – Saleh, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged his past and continuing detention pending deportation. He had a long series of convictions for dishonesty.
Held: ‘it is indeed disconcerting to find that a non-violent person subject to immigration control has been in . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Jun-2003
The claimant challenged his continued detention under the 1971 Act after his appeal to the Immigration Appeal tribunal had been successful. He had been accused of rape, but was convicted of a sexual assault, though still serious. Before being . .
Cited – MH, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 14-Oct-2010
mh_rCA2010
The claimant complained that his administrative detention for over 40 months had been unlawful. He now appealed against a finding that it had been lawful save for the final two months.
Held: The appeal failed. The period of time for which he . .
Approved – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.175162