Regina v Copeland: CACD 2002

The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used by the statute was ‘may’, not ‘must’: ‘there is no mention there of ‘must’: no mandatory provision. If it had been thought desirable then the statute could have been worded in words such as ‘for such period as the court shall specify.’
References: [2002] EWCA Crim 736, [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 512
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Doubted – Regina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002 (Times 19-Jul-02, Gazette 12-Sep-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 68, [2002] EWCA Crim 1592, )
    The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
    Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an . .
  • Preferred – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
    The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
    Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
  • Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003 ([2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, , [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531)
    The appellant challenged a confiscation order. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Knights and Another HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 50, , Times 21-Jul-05, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330)
    The defendants had been convicted of offences involving dealing with goods on which customs duty had not been paid. After conviction a timetable was set for sentencing and for confiscation proceedings. The House considered the making of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.180118