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 that presumption of innocence. The section required nothing of the Crown to even suggest any justified grounds of suspicion. The absence of any charge or similar procedure would make it even more necessary to provide the person subject to the application with the right to a fair trial.
Citations:
Times 31-Oct-2000, [2000] DRA 12
Statutes:
Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Scotland
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83548