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 proportion ordered.
Held: It could not be the law that if the judge found a serious risk of injustice in making an order in respect of a particular asset, he would be precluded from making an order with respect to other assets in that same class. The judge had not said that 25% came from legitimate resources, but that the discount was generous to the defendant in his estimated assessment. That approach was sensible.


Mr Justice Butterfield Lord Justice Mantell


[2004] EWCA (Crim) 524, Times 16-Mar-2004




Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4(4)(b)


England and Wales


CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194325