Regina v Knights and Another: HL 21 Jul 2005

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 confiscation order, the appellants saying that the date to which the determination had not been fixed, and that this failure to comply with the rules made the order ineffective.
Held: Lord Brown said: ‘When postponing the determination of one or other of the critical questions for decision in confiscation proceedings, the judge is required to specify the particular period of the postponement: he cannot simply adjourn the proceedings generally. I do not accept, however, that he is bound to specify the very date when the substantive hearing is to begin, still less the date when it is to end (the date, in other words, when the actual order, assuming there is to be one, will be made). To my mind it is sufficient, when postponing the proceedings, to give directions for the service of statements and to specify a date when the proceedings are next to be listed, whether for disposal, or for such further directions as may be needed, or to fix a final hearing date. Section 72A(2) expressly envisages that ‘more than one postponement may be made’. ‘
Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] UKHL 50, Times 21-Jul-2005, [2006] 1 AC 368, [2005] 4 All ER 347, [2005] 3 WLR 330
Bailii, House of Lords
Criminal Justice Act 1988 72A, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)
England and Wales
See AlsoRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Appeal fromSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
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, . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Davies CACD 2002
In confiscation proceedings, the trial judge had set a timetable for the service of statements but no further hearing date.
Held: The failure to specify a period for the postponement was fatal to the confiscation order subsequently made. . .
CitedRuddick v Regina CACD 16-Apr-2003
A judge was required to take into account a confiscation order before making an order for costs, but that need not invalidate the orders. Was a financial order made before the forfeiture process was complete void or merely a ground for appeal? The . .
CitedRegina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002
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 . .
Wrongly decidedPalmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .

Cited by:
CitedGuraj, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2016
The defendant had pleaded to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was sentenced, but then the prosecutor was 14 months’ late serving its notice with regard to the confiscation order under section 16. The crown now appealed . .
CitedGuraj, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his plea to charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. The Crown had served its statement under section 16 of the 2002 Act, but it was 14 months’ late. . .
CitedMcCool, 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.228954