The appellants were accused of involvement in a large conspiracy to defraud the Customs of import duties on alcohol. The main conspirator had committed the offences whilst in prison for similar offences. The parties appealed sentence and the confiscation orders made against them.
Held: The particular circumstances surrounding the sentence of the main conspirator made his sentence of 8 years (reduced from 9) not appropriate as a benchmark for the rest. Where there was an element of double jeopardy, that was to be allowed for. Where there had been a trial, it was for the judge himself to assess the degree of involvement of a defendant. Here, although the offence of conspiracy was a continuing one, for these purposes it took place when the agreement was first made. Accordingly the court had no power to make a confiscation order under laws which were put in place afterwards. In the absence of an order postponing the making of a confiscation order, the jurisdiction was lost.
Otherwise: Regina v Martin
Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Grigson, And, His Honour Judge Zucker Qc
[2001] EWCA Crim 2761, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 74
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.166983
