Having been convicted of drug trafficking, an application was made for a confiscation under the 1994 Act. On the civil balance of proof, and applying the assumptions under the Act, an order was made. The applicant claimed that his article 6 rights had been infringed. The respondent government said the application for an order was by way of additional penalty, and that no new criminal charge was involved, and art 6 was not engaged. The statutory assumption was not applied to facilitate finding the applicant guilty of an offence, but instead to enable assessment of the amount at which the confiscation order should be fixed. His article 6 rights were not engaged. The applicant also sought a declaration that the procedure infringed his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Convention does not apply to sentencing procedures. Accordingly the presumption applied in UK law in applying confiscation orders after convictions for drug trafficking offences was not a breach of that right. It was akin to part of the sentencing procedure. In any event the system allowed certain safeguards on the use of the presumption. The provision which allowed confiscation of assets acquired over a longer period was not unreasonable, did not either interfere with the applicant’s right of peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Judges:
G. Ress, President, A. Pastor Ridruejo, J. Makarczyk, Nicolas Bratza, V. Butkevych, N. Vajic, J. Hedigan, Judges, V. Berger, Section Registrar
Citations:
Times 13-Aug-2001, 41087/98, [2001] Crim LR 817, [2001] ECHR 437, (2001) 11 BHRC 280
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.2, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969)
Cited by:
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. . .
Applied – Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford HL 24-Jan-2002
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of . .
Cited – Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford HL 24-Jan-2002
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of . .
Cited – Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Cited – Regina v Levin CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, challenging the standard of proof applied by the judge.
Held: The judge was entitled to include in his consideration, the evidence given at the trial as well as that on the confiscation . .
Cited – Briggs-Price, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The applicant appealed against a confiscation order made on the basis of evidence obtained for and given in a trial that he had profited from the importation of cannabis. He had not faced trial on an associated charge, but had been convicted of . .
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 – Ahmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164838