The defendant appealed against a substantial confiscation order after his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the judge had been biased or had shown the appearance of bias against him. He had given some assistance to the prosecution in attempting to recover funds, but this had been insufficient. She also rejected the basis of plea of guilty submitted, having sat through the long trial of his co-accused.
Held: The accused had later agreed that he had received a greater sum than that at first admitted and rejected by the judge, and she had allowed a certain element of discount for his assistance. Bias had not been shown. The appeal failed. However as to the maximum sentence imposed by the judge on default of payment, Stanley Burnton LJ said: ‘In determining the default sentence, the judge was entitled to take into account what she had learned of the appellant and his offending during the course of the trial of his co-defendants, and the purpose of that sentence, as explained in the above authorities. But she also had to bear in mind that the period of 10 years’ imprisonment that she ordered would also have been applicable in the case of a defendant whose benefit and disposable property greatly exceeded the appellant’s. In our judgment, it follows that the default sentence should have been less than the maximum.’
Stanley Burnton LJ, Penry-Davey LJ, Sharp J
 EWCA Crim 2292
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Szrajber CACD 1994
Latham J discussed the periods of sentence to be imposed in default of payment of a confiscation order: ‘The use of the words ‘the maximum period’ [in the statute] makes it quite plain that it was intended that these should indeed be maximum . .
Cited – Regina v Smith CACD 17-Feb-2009
Thomas LJ discussed the sentence to be imposed on default by the defendant in payment of a sum due under a confiscation order: ‘We turn therefore to the authorities which have been put before us in relation to the short issue. They are R v Szrajber . .
Cited – Regina v French CACD 1996
Hobhouse J discussed the sentencing in default of payment of a sum due under a confiscation order: ‘It is to be borne in mind that there is a scheme under the Act whereby orders may be reviewed and whereby the period in default falls to be reduced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.377787