In re Hill and Others (Restraint Order): CACD 20 Dec 2005

The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Under the former law, criminal proceedings had to be about to be begun before the jurisdiction to make an order arose, but: ‘the judge erred in his approach to the requirement of section 40(2)(a), when read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Commencement Order. The test to be applied is whether an investigation has begun into an offence which took place after 24th March 2003. In order to satisfy section 69, the offence must be one in respect of which a confiscation order may be made following conviction. For the purpose of establishing jurisdiction to make an order, it matters not whether the investigating authority is also investigating one or more offences which occurred before 24th March 2003. Nor does it matter, for the purpose of jurisdiction, that there is criminal conduct occurring before 24th March 2003, which underlies the post March 2003 offences – as may occur with money laundering. In our view, the time at which the test is to be applied is the time when the application is made, not when the investigation began. That is clear from the words of section 40(2)(a). All that is required therefore, to establish jurisdiction, is that an offence that may, following conviction, give rise to a confiscation order is under investigation at the time of the application. ‘

Smith LJ, Jack J, Milford QC
Times 27-Dec-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 3271
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 \\\\840(1)
England and Wales
CitedSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedSimpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.237474