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 cover the earlier shortfall, by allowing for them when issuing a certificate to increase the amount of the confiscation order.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed (Hope, Hale LL dissenting). The purpose of the 1994 Act was to deprive criminals of the benefits of their crimes. There was nothing in section 16(2) to restrict it to application to sums available at the time of the making of the order, and indeed the words in parenthesis implied the opposite. To exclude after acquired property would have required clearer wording.
Lord Hope dissented saying that such a reading would dissuade a defendant from engaging in enterprise and hard work after serving whatever time was imposed. A statute should not be interpreted so as to take away property rights save with clear and express words.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Wilson
[2012] UKSC 3, UKSC 2011/0014, [2012] Lloyd’s Rep FC 291, [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 81, [2012] 1 WLR 550, [2012] WLR(D) 42, [2012] Crim LR 472, [2012] 2 All ER 257
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 16(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Tivnan CACD 6-May-1998
The Crown Court was able to increase the amount of a confiscation order after making the original order, where further assets were revealed, but not beyond assessed benefit to him of the crime. . .
Appeal from – In re Peacock CA 20-Dec-2010
The court was asked, where a defendant fell to be subject to an increased confiscation order under the 1994 Act, where at the time of the original order his assets had been inadequate to meet the sum of benefit found to have been received, but he . .
Cited – 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 – Regina v Rezvi HL 24-Jan-2002
Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant’s human rights. . .
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
At first instance – Regina v Peacock and Another CACD 2-Apr-2009
The two defendants appealed against the increase of compensation orders made to reflect assets received properly after their original sentencing. . .
Cited – Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners PC 18-Jan-1927
An Act removing the right of appeal to the Privy Council was held not to affect an appeal in litigation pending when the Act was passed and decided after its passing, on the ground that (Lord Warrington) ‘[t]o deprive a suitor in pending litigation . .
Cited – In re O’Donoghue CA 4-Nov-2004
Appeal against refusal of certificate of inadequacy.
Held: On an application by the defendant under section 17, the High Court should survey the present value of all the defendant’s property, whether acquired before or after the making of the . .
Cited – Westminster Bank Limited v The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Beverley Borough Council HL 1971
The Bank’s application for planning permission was refused on the grounds that the development might prejudice the possible future widening of a road. The local authority could have prescribed a building line in accordance with a provision of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Padda v Regina CACD 12-Dec-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.451454
