Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh: PC 5 Feb 2001

(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with his article 6 rights. The first question was whether he remained a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’. The Court felt not. The application was not initiated by the complainant, could only be made after a conviction, and was part of the sentencing procedure,. The defendant was accused of no additional criminal activity, the statement lodged in support of an application for confiscation order was an accounting statement and not an accusation, the sum ordered did not be the profit from drug trafficking or any other offence, and the time order to be served in the case of default related to the failure, not to any underlying offence, any risk that matters referred to in the statement might be subject to a later charge, left a possibility of double jeopardy, and the proceedings and did not conclude in the verdict. The statutory scheme laid down by a democratically elected parliament should not be readily rejected. The sources of the assets was known to the defendant and a defendant explain them would not be faced with a court order.
Criminal confiscation proceedings do not amount to the bringing of a fresh criminal charge and thus Art. 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not directly engaged. However, a court is required to act with ‘scrupulous fairness’ in making its assessment for the purposes of a confiscation order. Further, the proceedings are designed to be fully adversarial, affording the accused every opportunity to challenge evidence against him and to call witnesses.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 08-Feb-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 107, DRA No 12 of 2000, [2003] 1 AC 1078, [2001] UKPCD 1, [2001] 2 All ER 638, 2001 SC (PC) 89, [2001] 2 Cr App R 27, 2001 GWD 6-206, [2001] HRLR 20, 2001 SLT 304, 2001 SCCR 191, [2001] UKHRR 463
PC, PC, Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998, Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 3(2)
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal fromMcintosh v HM Advocate HCJ 31-Oct-2000
An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Rezvi HL 24-Jan-2002
Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant’s human rights. . .
Appealed toMcintosh v HM Advocate HCJ 31-Oct-2000
An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated . .
CitedLloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
CitedPeacock, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.163307