The defendant had been convicted of supplying drugs, had had a confiscation made and had paid out under it. The prosecution sought a restraint order pending re-assessment. A further confiscation order was made. The defendant appealed, saying that this was not a case of assets having been concealed and that he should be allowed to rehabilitate himself.
Held: Peacock established that the court had power to make the order, but did not create guidelines as to use of that power: ‘the obligation of a court under section 22(4)(a), bearing well in mind the policy underlining POCA, is in the exercise of its discretion to make a ‘just’ order. It is in the very highest degree unlikely that any order which is ‘just’ will be found to be disproportionate, so as to infringe A1 P1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
In that context, it is entirely appropriate for a court to consider such matters as the amount outstanding, the additional amount which might now be available for a further payment, the length of time since the original confiscation order was made, the impact on the Defendant of any further payment contemplated and indeed any other consideration which might properly be thought to affect the justice of the case.’ The court having correctly applied these considerations, the appeal was dismissed.
Rafferty LJ, Irwin J, Carey J Rec
[2013] EWCA Crim 2330
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Peacock, 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 . .
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 – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518941