The appellant had been convicted under the 1952 Act of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent importation of controlled drugs. She was sentenced to imprisonment on her plea. More than three months later, application was made to forfeit the money found on arrest. The court inferred that the whole of the money had been provided to her to assist in the importation, and a forfeiture order was made, expressed to be under section 27 of the Act of 1971 or, alternatively, under section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. She appealed the forfeiture saying it was made without jurisdiction since the time limit for variation under section 11(2) of the Courts Act 1971 had expired. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Held: By virtue of the definition of ‘sentence’ in section 57 of the Courts Act 1971 the word ‘sentence’ in section 11(2) of that Act included a forfeiture order made against the offender; section 11(2) laid down very clearly that any sentence or other order might be varied or rescinded by the Crown Court within 28 days, but that there was no power in the Crown Court to vary or rescind a sentence or any other order after the expiry of that period, and that accordingly, in the circumstances, the appeal must be allowed.
Judges:
Lord Edmund Davies
Citations:
[1980] AC 598, [1979] 2 WLR 876
Statutes:
Customs and Excise Act 1952 304, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 3(1), Courts Act 1971
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.249951