Site icon swarb.co.uk

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 11 Nov 2015

‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (DTA) as meaning either:
i) the sum due when the default term was fixed by the Crown Court judge (the appellant’s case); or
ii) the sum due when the default term was activated by the Magistrates’ Court (the respondent’s case).’
Held: Part payments had to be taken into account, and to give effect to that conclusion it read two additional words into section 79(2) so that it read ‘Where, before or after a period of imprisonment . . has been imposed . . ‘

Judges:

Lewison, Treacey, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1148, [2016] 4 All ER 244, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 11, [2017] 1 WLR 1115

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980, Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 4-Sep-2013
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromGibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554608

Exit mobile version