In re Peters: CA 1988

After the defendant was arrested for drugs offences a restraint order was made to prevent dissipation of his assets. Orders were made to vary the restraint to allow payment of his sons school fees, and in family proceedings for a payment to his wife. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise appealed the latter order.
Held: The purpose of a restraint order was to preserve assets so that any confiscation order could be satisfied. Some payments might be allowed but not so as to prejudice the purpose of the restraint. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR: ‘The Act itself is terminologically complex, but the legislative intention and the broad scheme whereby that intention is to be achieved are reasonably clear. The intention is that no one convicted of drug trafficking offences shall be allowed to retain any part of the proceeds of his crime. The broad scheme involves the making of confiscation orders at the time of sentencing and of prior protective orders. The latter are designed to prevent an accused rendering a confiscation order inappropriate or nugatory by disposing of his assets between the time when an information is about to be laid against him and the making of a confiscation order in the event of conviction.’
Lord Justice Mann said: ‘There is, in the light of section 13(2) no room for the intrusion of sympathy.’

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Mann LJ
[1988] 1 QB 871, [1988] 3 WLR 182, [1988] 3 All ER 46
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 8(1)(5) 13(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD 22-Apr-2004
A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .
CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
CitedStodgell v Stodgell FD FD 18-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in ancillary relief proceedings. At the same time the husband was in prison after having hidden earnings from his business, and was subject to an unsatisfied confiscation order. The guardian had had doubts about the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.199327