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 whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came before the court. The confiscation process had to be looked at as against both limbs of article 6. Having reversed the burden of proof, the provision must look at both in the light of article 6 and also against and in deference to the policy which the legislature considered was in the public interest. The provisions of the Human Rights Act were not retrospective.
Judges:
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton
Citations:
Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 28-Dec-2000, Times 28-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] UKHL 2, [2002] 2 WLR 235, [2002] 1 All ER 815, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 71, [2002] HRLR 20, [2002] 2 Cr App R 3
Links:
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998, Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4(3), European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 – Phillips v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Jul-2001
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 . .
Appeal from – Regina v Benjafield, Leal, Rezvi and Milford CACD 21-Dec-2000
Lord Woolf MR said that where the original proceedings are brought by a public authority, an appeal is part of those proceedings to which section 22(4) applies: ‘In our judgment, where the original proceedings are brought by, or at the instigation . .
Cited – Phillips v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Jul-2001
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Regina v Deprince CACD 9-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made under the drug trafficking legislation. The judge had made a finding that there would be a serious chance of unfairness in the order but had continued nonetheless, by reducing the relative . .
Cited – Grayson and Barnham v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2008
Each applicant had been subject to confiscation in criminal proceedings relating to drugs offences. They complained that the legislation had reversed the burden of proof.
Held: ‘it was not incompatible with the notion of a fair hearing in . .
Cited – Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167437