The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be adjourned for a later full hearing, at which the order was made.
Held: The service of a valid notice is a necessary condition for the making of such an order, and the court could not correct a mistake of its own motion. Nor did the judge have the power to postpone proceedings, nor to proceed directly to sentencing anticipating service of a notice. The confiscation order of more than pounds 30 million was quashed because of a defect in a prosecutor’s notice.
References: Times 05-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2202, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 112
Links: Bailii
Judges: Rix LJ, Sir Ian Kennedy
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 71 72(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Disapproved in – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
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, . .
This case is cited by:
- Disappoved – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
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, . . - Disapproved – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
The appellant challenged a confiscation order. 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 1995 Act was not in force, did the . . - Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
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 . . - Wrongly decided – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . . - Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Crim 635, Times 26-Mar-07)
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . . - Cited – Guraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 65, [2016] WLR(D) 673, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 117, [2017] 1 WLR 22, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 32, [2017] Crim LR 320, , , UKSC 2015/0152, , )
The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.177738 br>