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
