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 steps to enforce the order. That deal did infringe the applicant’s human rights. The defendant argued that once the order had been made, the defendant became and remained under a continuing obligation to pay. The proceedings were akin to the final determination of a fine. Given that the applicant was left to worry as to his possible imprisonment, the delay was inexcusable. The Court reaffirmed the principle that article 6.1 applied throughout the entirety of criminal proceedings and found that confiscation proceedings were analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of imprisonment to be imposed.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that article 6.1 applied throughout the entirety of criminal proceedings and found that confiscation proceedings were analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of imprisonment to be imposed.
Citations:
Times 11-Feb-2005, 53741/00, [2005] ECHR 45
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Citing:
Cited – Welch v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Feb-1995
The applicant was convicted in 1988 of drug offences committed in 1986. The judge passed a sentence of imprisonment but imposed a confiscation order pursuant to an Act that came into force in l987.
Held: The concept of penalty in Article 7 was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bullen and Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227594