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 assessment beyond the six month limitation period, the court must specify the date on which it would be determined. Appeal allowed.
References: Times 19-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2003] 1 Cr App R 68, [2002] EWCA Crim 1592
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Statutes: Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 22-May-2001 ([2002] 1 WLR 1806, [2001] EWCA Crim 2902, (2002) Crim LR 224, [2001] All ER (D) 268, [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 348)
The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter. - Cited – Regina v Ross CACD 3-Apr-2001 (Times 03-Apr-01, (2001) 2 Cr App R (S))
. . - Doubted – Regina v Copeland CACD 2002 ([2002] EWCA Crim 736, [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 512)
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 . . - Disapproved in – 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 – Regina v Davies CACD 22-May-2001 ([2002] 1 WLR 1806, [2001] EWCA Crim 2902, (2002) Crim LR 224, [2001] All ER (D) 268, [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 348)
The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter.
This case is cited by:
- Disappoved – 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 – 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.174113
