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 if the order has been partially complied with. However, the hypothesis on which the order in default has to be made is that there is a wilful and total refusal to comply with the order. It postulates that the relevant person may be preferring to serve an additional period of imprisonment rather than comply with the financial order. It is not the role of the courts to encourage a defendant in any way in his non-compliance with the order. The period of imprisonment in default which is imposed should be such, within the maxima permitted, as to make it completely clear to the defendant that he has nothing to gain by failing to comply with the order.’
Judges:
Hobhouse J
Citations:
(1996) 16 Cr App R (S) 841
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Pigott v Regina CACD 9-Nov-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.377792
